9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to judgment of Madras High Court dismissing Habeas Corpus Petition seeking release of detenu detained under Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982 on grounds of discrepancies in case numbers, translation errors, lack of material documents, and absence of proof of habitual criminal activities. Analysis: 1. The appellant challenged the judgment of the Madras High Court dismissing the Habeas Corpus Petition seeking the release of the detenu detained under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982. The detenu was labeled a "Goonda" under the Act due to habitual criminal activities prejudicial to public order. The appellant raised grounds before the High Court, including discrepancies in case numbers, translation errors, lack of material documents, and absence of proof of habitual criminal activities by the detenu. 2. The High Court found minor differences between the English and Tamil versions but deemed them insignificant to affect the detention order. The other grounds raised by the appellant were also dismissed. The appellant, in support of the appeal, argued that records were manipulated, and the detenu was not habitually committing crimes as required by the Act's definition of a "Goonda." 3. The State, supporting the detention order, argued that the detenu's actions disturbed public tranquility, justifying his detention as a "Goonda." The Court emphasized that the detenu must meet the definition of a "Goonda" under the Act to warrant detention. The absence of proof of habitual criminal activities by the detenu was crucial in determining the validity of the detention order. 4. The Court referred to Section 2(f) of the Act, defining a "Goonda" as a person habitually committing, attempting, or abetting offenses under specific sections of the Indian Penal Code. The Court highlighted the requirement for the detenu to be habitually involved in criminal activities to justify preventive detention under the Act. 5. The Court delved into the meaning of "habitual" criminal activities, emphasizing the need for continuity and persistence in criminal behavior to label a person as habitual. The Court clarified that isolated incidents do not establish habitual criminality. The Court analyzed previous judgments to underscore the significance of proving habitual criminal conduct for preventive detention under such laws. 6. Ultimately, the Court found the detention order lacking sufficient evidence of the detenu's habitual criminal activities. The order was quashed based on the absence of proof of habitual criminal behavior, as required by the Act. The detenu was ordered to be released unless there were other valid grounds for detention. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment.
|
