Single case enough to detain person under Goondas Act, says court
Saturday, Jun 25, 2011
K.T.Sangameswaran
CHENNAI: To detain a person under the Goondas Act, it is not necessary that there should be more than one case which has the propensity of disturbing the maintenance of public order, a Full Bench of the Madras High Court held on Friday.
Of all the cases against the person concerned, even if a single incident has the propensity of affecting the even tempo of life and public tranquillity being prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, that by itself would be sufficient to pass a valid order of detention.
There could not be any straight-jacket formula or universal rule in respect of the number of cases because the necessity for passing a detention order depended on the facts and circumstances of each case.
To brand a person as ‘Goonda,' as defined under section 2 (f) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video-Pirates Act, it is absolutely necessary that there should be more than one case involving offences punishable under the IPC.
The Bench comprising Justices K.N.Basha, T.Sudanthiram and S.Nagamuthu passed the order when it was called upon in a habeas corpus petition (HCP) to declare the law as to whether a solitary instance was sufficient to detain a person who had been branded as a ‘Goonda.'
Originally, a habeas corpus petition was filed by Arumugam before the Madurai Bench seeking to quash the detention order passed by the Madurai Police Commissioner against Madhavan alias Kannan and direct the authorities to produce him before the court and set him at liberty. When the matter was heard by a Division Bench, the main contention made was that the solitary incident of robbery mentioned in the ground case could not attract Goondas Act. The matter was referred to a Full Bench.
The Bench said if was of the considered view that there could not be a straight-jacket formula or universal rule as held by a Division Bench in Rajendran's case to the effect that a single incident giving rise to a single case was not enough to justify the order of detention. But it all depended upon the facts and circumstances of each case where the detaining authority had to consider from the material available and thereafter to conclude that a particular person was a goonda. After branding the person as a goonda, it had to consider further as to whether his act on the basis of the single incident constituting offences or more than one case would amount to act/acts which is/are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order necessitating a detention order.
The Bench overruled the law laid down in Rajendran's case.
It posted the HCP before the Division Bench for final disposal.
https://www.hinduonnet.com/2011/06/25/stories/2011062565470900.htm
