An individual cannot be branded as a ‘goonda' and lodged in jail under preventive detention solely on the basis of a series of chain snatching cases registered against him unless there were sufficient materials to prove that his activities were prejudicial to maintenance of public order, the Madras High Court Bench here has ruled.
Justices S. Rajeswaran and G.M. Akbar Ali passed the ruling while quashing an order passed by the Madurai Commissioner of Police on November 15 detaining a 26-year-old under the Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982.
Earlier during arguments, the petitioner's counsel W. Peter Ramesh Kumar contended the accused was arrested by the Vilakuthoon police here on November 3 in connection with a theft case.
Four other cases
Thereafter he was implicated falsely in four other cases of chain snatching, booked between July 25 and October 20, on the basis of his supposed confession and detained under the Goondas Act.
The Bench pointed out that the accused was only 26 years old, whereas the complainant in the one of the four cases had stated that an unknown person aged 40 years had robbed her gold chain and escaped with another person in a two-wheeler. In the second case too, the complainant had claimed that a 30-year-old had taken away her seven sovereign gold chain when she was sleeping at home.
In the other cases also, the complainants had claimed to have been robbed by individuals aged between 30 and 35 years.
“Therefore, we see some force in the argument of the petitioner's counsel that implicating the detenu in four ‘accused unidentified' cases is intended with mala fide.
In our considered view, the detaining authority has not applied his mind in ascertaining the age of the detenu,” the judges said.
Date of detention
The Bench further pointed out that the date of detention had been mentioned as November 3 in the English version and as November 31 in the Tamil version of the detention order served on the accused.
He recalled that the High Court had time and again reiterated that even a typographical error could not be ignored because it would only go to show non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority.
“The object of passing a detention order is not to punish but only to prevent certain offences and so the procedures prescribed should be substantially followed. Conjoint reading of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution would indicate that no person can be deprived of his personal liberty except according to procedure established by law,” the judges added.
