Sakthi @ Sakthivel vs State of Tamil Nadu and another

The present action had been initiated by the detenu Sakthi alias Sakthivel, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a

Writ of Haebas Corpus, directing the respondents to produce him before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

The District Magistrate and Collector of Chidambaranar District, Tuticorin, Second respondent in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-

Section (1) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 clamped upon the detenu the impugned order of detention in his proceedings H.S.(M)

Confdl. No. 15/94 dated 19.3.1994 with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and

health.

Apart from the ground case, the incident which took place at 8.30 hours on 1.3.1994 getting registered as a case in Crime No. 141 of 1994 of

Kovilpatti West Police Station, for alleged offences under Sections 427, 307, 506 Part II I.P.C. and 25(1) of the Indian Arms Act, he had come

to adverse notice in three other cases, the first one in Crime No. 769/1993 on the file of the Kovilpatti West Police Station for an offence u/s 395

I.P.C. the second one in Crime No. 31/94 of Ettaiyapuram Police Station for offences under Sections 341 and 506 (ii) I.P.C. and the third one in

Crime No. 40/94 of Kalugumalai Police Station, for the offence under Sec.397 I.P.C. The investigation in all those cases, it is said, is pending.

During the course of investigation the detenu had been arrested on 7.3.1994.

Though manifold grounds had been taken in assailing the impugned order of detention, Mrs.R.Subadra Devi, Learned Counsel appearing for the

petitioner detenu, thought fit to press into service the following two grounds alone for consideration, obviously feeling the other grounds, if pressed,

may not stand even a minute''s scrutiny. They are: (1) The family members of the detenu were not at all informed of the place of detention of the

detenu by the second respondent-Detaining Authority pursuant to the order of detention, infringing the constitutional guarantee available under

Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (2) The facts of the ground case, if perused with little bit of care, caution and circumspection would indicate

that the simplicitor law and order situation'' is magnified as one prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

Mr.R.Raghupathi learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondents would, however, repel the submissions as above and

produce the relevant file for perusal and consideration of this Court.

We may now enter into the arena of discussion for consideration of the rival submissions as above. A perusal of the relevant file indicates, in a

clinching fashion, that one Anusuya, sister of the detenu had been intimated as respects the place, where the detenu had been detained by means of

a communication on 21.3.1994 and in token of receipt of the communication, the said sister of the detenu had acknowledged, by subscribing her

signature, which had been attested by two independent witnesses. Such being the case, this submission, as such merits little substance.

Before entering into a discussion as to whether the facts and circumstances of the ground case constitutes a public disorder or a mere law and

order situation, better it is, we think to understand those two concepts, in a better fashion and such a feat can be performed by citing a decision in

the case of Ashok Kumar Vs. Delhi Administration and Others, emerging from the Apex Court of this country. Their Lordships of the Supreme

Court settled a nice distinction between ""public order"" and ""law and order"" in a scintillating fashion and what their Lordships said about those

concepts, if penned down here, would be of immense help in deciding the question as now posed in this case with ease and grace and without any

difficulty whatever. It is reflected thus:-

The true distinction between the areas of ''public order'' and ''law and order'' lies not in the nature or quality of the act, but in the degree and

extent of its reach upon society. The distinction between the two concepts of ''law and order and ''public order'' is a fine one but this does not

mean that there can be no overlapping acts similar in nature but committed in different contexts and circumstances might cause different reactions.

In one case it might affect specific individuals only and therefore touch the problem of law and order, while in another it might affect public order.

The act by itself therefore is not determinant of its own gravity. It is the potentiality of the act to disturb the even tempo of the life of the community

which makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. That test is clearly fulfilled in the facts and circumstances of the present

case""................

(17). It is the length, magnitude and intensity of the terror wave unleashed by a particular act of violence creating disorder that distinguishes it as an

act affecting public order from that concerning law and order. Some offences primarily injure specific and only secondarily the public interest, while

others directly injure the public interest and affect individuals only remotely. The question is of the survival of the society and the problem is the

method of control. Whenever there is an armed hold-up by gangsters in an exclusive residential area persons are deprived of watch or cash, or

ladies relieved of their gold-chains or ornaments at the point of a knife or revolver, they become victims of organised crime. There is very little that

the police can do about it except to keep a constant vigil over the movements of such persons. The particular acts enumerated in the grounds of

detention clearly show that the activities of the detenu cover a wide field and fall within the contours of the concept of public order.

For appreciating the second submission raised by Learned Counsel for the petitioner-detenu, the facts of the ground case would be of immense

use and help. Such facts are referred to in paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention, which runs as under:

Duraisingam, son of Chinnappa Konar, is residing at A.K.S.Road, Kovilpatti and he is running a tiffin stall in the name of Karthik at his house. On

1.3.1994 at 08.30 hrs. while he was attending his business, Thiruvalarkal l.Madasamy, son of Karadkarai, Bharathinagar, Mettu Street, Kovilpatti,

Vetri @ Vetrivel @ Uthandan, son of Uthandan, Pottalkadu, 3. Ramar @ Ramachandran, son of Karnan, Pottalkadu and 4. Sakthi @

Sakthivel, son of Kothandapani Padayachi, Paravakari were taking tiffin and some customers were standing for tiffin as there was no seat. So

Duraisingam urged them to finish their tiffin fastly and give seat to others. But they did not mind him and joked among them. On seeing their jokes,

the waiters Murugesan and Chinnathambi also urged them to finish their tiffin fastly and give seat to them. But they replied by uttering

At once, Duraisingam instructed and insisted them, don''t use filthy words and vacate the seat"" so saying Thiruvalarkal Madasamy took out his

country made revolver and the remaining three others took out their aruvals which were hidden and pushed down the milk pot, boiler and threw

out the Idli and dosai which were kept for selling. When Duraisingam tried to resist them, Thiru Madasamy shot with his counrty made revolver,

but it did not explode and in the same manner, Vetri, Sakthi and Ramar tried to cut him by uttering

He raised alarm and ran towards north. On seeing it, the neighbouring shop keepers Kathiresan, Nainar, Iyyanar and some other shop keepers

rushed there

so saying they threatened them. The crowd ran scatterly. They also menaced the shopkeepers to close their shops and they closed their shop for

apprehending danger to their lives and properties. By doing their acts, the pedestrians and the public ran pellmell scattered with fear. The vehicles

which came on the way returned back on the same way. Therefore, a feeling of insecurity in the minds of public was created by them and the

routine life paralysed. They threatened the public by showing their weapons and ran towards south.

..............""......:...... By committing the above described crimes in the public in the busy locality and residential area in the broad day light he has

created an alarm and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the public of that area and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of

public order.

From the facts of the ground case as stated above, it is rather crystal clear that the activity of the petitioner-detenu, done conjointly with his

comrades, affected even tempo of the life of the society by creating a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the public of that area. Further the fear

psychosis created by the detenu and his other comrades in the minds of the members of the community, was such that such culprits and assailants

would go unpunished which has the potential of the society, and not merely some individual to suffer. In such circumstances, we are of the view

that the activities of the detenu-petitioner would squarely fall within the tentacles of Explanation appended to Clause ''A'' of Sec.2 of Act 14/1982.

In this view of the matter the second submission projected by Learned Counsel for the petitioner also bristles next to nothing.

For the reasons as above, the H.C.P. deserves dismissal and the same is accordingly dismissed.