Holding

A detention order under Section 3(1) of the Act is invalid where the ground of "habitually committing crime" is not substantiated, as a single incident cannot satisfy the definition of a "goonda" under Section 2(f).

Summary

The Supreme Court examined a detention order issued under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982, which labeled the detenu as a "goonda" on the basis that he habitually committed crimes. The petition challenging the detention alleged that the grounds relied on a single incident and lacked evidence of habitual criminality. The Court held that the definition of "goonda" under Section 2(f) requires proof of a repeated or persistent pattern of offences, not an isolated act. It explained that "habitually" implies a continuous practice demonstrated by the totality of facts, and an isolated transaction cannot establish a habit. Consequently, the detention order was quashed, the High Court's decision set aside, and the detenu ordered to be released. The appeal by the State was allowed, emphasizing that procedural defects in translation were immaterial compared to the substantive deficiency in the grounds for detention.

Issues considered

Whether a detention order under Section 3(1) of the Act can be sustained on the basis of a single incident.
Whether the term "habitually" in the definition of "goonda" under Section 2(f) requires proof of repeated offences.
Whether the lack of material showing habitual criminality invalidates the detention order.
Whether procedural irregularities in the translation of the detention order affect its validity.

Subjects

preventive detentiongoondahabitual criminalSection 3(1)public orderhabeas corpustranslation defect

Judgment

A R. KALA VATHI
V.

THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

JULY 3, 2006

B [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.]

Preventive detention :

C Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders,
Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and
Video Pirates Act, 1982--Sections 2(f), 3(/)-Detention ordered on the ground
that detenu was a goonda within the meaning of s.2(f}-Maintainabili~v of-
Held, Not maintainable as ground of detention referred only to one incident
and there was nothing to show that detenu was habitually committing crime.
D
Words and Phrases :

'Habit', 'Habitual"- Meaning of-Explained

An order of detention was passed under Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu
E Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest
Offenders, Goondas, l!mmoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and
Video Pirates. Act, 1!182 against detenu on the allegation that he is
habitually committing crime and as such is a 'Goonda' as defined under
Section 2(f) of the Aeli. The detention order was challenged by filing a
F habeas corpus petition before the High Court. High Court did not interfere
with the detention order.

In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the ground of
detention referred to only one incident and there is no material to show
that detenu was habitually committing crime.
G
Allowing the app1eal, the Court

HELD: 1. In ord1:r to attract action in terms of Section 3(1) of the
Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug
Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum
H
74
R. KALAVATHI v.STATEOF TAMIL NADU 75
Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982, the detenu must be one who is a A
"Goonda" as defined .under Section 2(f) of the Act. Though in other
preventive detention laws, even a single act which has the propensity of
affecting the even tempo of life and public tranquility would be sufficient
for detention, being prejudicial to maintenance of public order.
(77-H; 78-Al B
2.1. The word 'habit' implies a tendency or capacity resulting from
the frequent repetition of the same acts. The words 'habit' and 'habitually'
imply frequent practice or use. "Habitual - Constant; customary; addicted
to a specified habit". The word 'habitually' does not refer to the frequency
of the occasions but to the invariability of a practice and the habit has to C
be proved by totality of facts. It, therefore, follows that the complicity of
a person in an isolated offence is neither evidence nor a material of any
help to conclude that a particular person is a "dangerous person" unless
there is material suggesting his complicity in such cases, which lead to a
reasonable conclusion that the person is a habitual criminal. [78-C; F-G I
D
Advanced law lexicon (3rd Edn.) by P. Ramanatha Aiyer, referred
to.

2.2. The expression "habitually" is very significant. A person is said
to be a habitual criminal who by force of habit or inward disposition is E
accustomed to commit crimes. It implies commission of such crimes
repeatedly or persistently and prima facie there should be continuity in
the commission of those offences. From one single transaction though
consisting of several acts, a habit cannot be attributed to a person. 3. The
crder of detention cannot be maintained because it only refers to one act.
There is also no material to justify the conclusion that the accused was F
habitually committing crime. There is no reference to any other crime.
[78-H; 79-A-C(

Vijay Amba Das Diware and Ors. v. Balkrishna Waman Dande and Anr.,
[2000) 4 SCC 126; Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh v. M.M. Mehta,
Commissioner of Police, (1995) 3 sec 237 and Ayub alias Pappukhan G
Nawabkhan Pathan v. S.N. Sinha, (1990) 4 SCC 552, relied on.

Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar, (1984) SCC (Crl.) 361, referred
to.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 698 H
of 2006.
76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A From the Judgment and Order dated 18.1.2006 of the High Court of
Judicature at Madras, in Habeas Corpus Petition No. 851 of 2005.

Jayant Bhushan" S. Balaji, Satya and Mitra Garg for the Appellant.

V. Krishnamurthy for the Respondent.
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division
C Bench of the Madras High Court dismissing the Habeas Corpus Petition filed
by the appellant seeking release of Rathina Raj @ Rathnavel Pandian
(hereinafter referred to as the 'detenu'), who was detained under Section 3(1)
of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug
Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders; Slum
Grabbers and Video Pi.rates Act, 1982 (in short the 'Act') as a "Goonda".
D The accusation against him was to the effect that he is habitually committing
crime and that he had also acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance
of public order and as such he is a "Goonda" as defined under Section 2(1)
of the Act.
•.
E The order of detention was passed in respect of Rathina Raj, which was
approved by the State Government. The detention order was challenged by
filing a Habeas Corpus petition before the Madras High Court.

Before the High Court primarily the following grounds were urged:

(1) There is discrepancy in the case numbers and the detaining
F
authority was not supplied with material documents;
(2) The translated copy supplied to the detenu in Tamil language
was different from what was supplied in the English language
and there were several defects. That being so, the detenu was not
in a position to make an effective representation;
G
(3) Relevant and material documents were not placed before the
detaining authority and were also not supplied to the detenu and
as such he was prevented .from making an effective representation;
(4) Sufficient material was not placed before the detaining authority
H to pass the order of detention which was passed mechanically. .,
R.KALAVATHlv. STATEOFTAMILNADU[PASAYAT,J.] 77

The High Court noticed that there were some differences between the A
English version and the Tamil version. But those were considered to be too
trivial to affect the order of detention. The other grounds were also not
accepted.

In support of the appeal, Mr. Jayant Bhushan learned senior counsel
submitted that at least two documents clearly show that the records were B
manipulated. Additionally, for being labelled as a Goonda under the Act, the
definition of "Goonda" under Section 2(f) of the Act is relevant. The grounds
of detention referred to only one incident and there is no material to show
l. that the detenu was habitually committing crime.

In support of the order of detention and the order of the High Court,
c
learned counsel for the State submitted that it is fairly well settled that it is
the impact of an act and not the number of acts which determine whether the
act can be relatable to public order or not. In the instant case, the scenario
as described in the grounds of detention clearly shows that the acts committed
by the detenu were of such intensity that even tempo of life was affected and D
public tranquility was disturbed. Therefore, according to him, the detenu has
rightly been detained.

Though reference was made by learned counsel for the appellant to
several documents to contend that the records were manipulated, we do not
consider it necessary to go into that aspect, because in our considered view E
the order of detention is liable to be quashed on the other ground as submitted
by learned counsel for the appellant i.e. absence of materials to show that the

,.
detenu was habitually committing offences.
p

Section 2(f) of the Act reads as follows:
F
"xx xx xx xx

(f) "Goonda" means a person, who either by himsdf or as a member
of or leader of a gang habitually commits, or attempts to commit or
abets the commission of offence, punishable under Chapter XVI or
Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code (Central Act G
XLV of 1860)."

(underlined for emphasis)

A bare reading of the provision makes the position clear that in order
to attract action in terms of Section 3(1) of the Act, the detenu must be one H
>-·
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A who is a "Goonda" as ddined under Section 2(f) of the Act. Though in other
preventive detention laws, even a single act which has the propensity of
affecting even tempo of life and public tranquility would be sufficient for
detention, being prejudi1:ial to maintenance of public order. For the purpose
of the Act the detenu has to be a "Goonda" as defined under Section 2( f) of
the Act.
B
Habitual : The meaning of the words "habit" and "habitually" as given
in the Advanced LawO.exicon (3rd Edn.) by P. Ramanatha Aiyer is : "Habit-
settled tendency or practice, mental constitution. The word 'habit' implies a
tendency or capacity resulting from the frequent repetition of the same acts.
C The words by 'habit' and 'habitually' imply frequent practice or use. "Habitual-
Constant; customary; addicted to a specified habit". The Court in Vijay Narain
Singh v. State of Bihar, [1984] SCC (Cr!.) 361, considered the question of a
habitual criminal and in para 3 I the expression "habitually" was explained as
follows: ''The expression 'habitually' means 'repeatedly' or 'persistently'. It
implies a thread of continuity stringing together similar repetitive acts -
D repeated, persistent and similar, but no isolated, individual and dissimilar acts
are necessary to justify an inference of habit". The expression "habitual"
would mean repeatedly or persistently and implies a thread of continuity
stringing together similar repeated acts. An isolated default of rent would not
mean that the tenant was a habitual defaulter. (See: Vijay Amba Das Diware
E and Ors. v. Balkrishna Waman Dande and Anr., [2000] 4 SCC 126).

The expression "habit" or "habitual" has not been defined under the
Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985. The word 'habitually'
does not refer to the frequency of the occasions but to the invariability of a
practice and the habit has to be proved by totality of facts. It, therefore,
p follows that the complicity of a person in an isolated offence is neither
evidence nor a material of any help to conclude that a particular person is a
"dangerous person" unless there is material suggesting his complicity in such
cases, which lead to a rf:asonable conclusion that the person is a habitual
criminal. The word 'habitually' means 'usually' and 'generally'. Almost simiiar
meaning is assigned to th(: words 'habit' in Aiyer's Judicial Dictionary, 10th
G Edition, at p.485. It does not refer to the frequency of the occasions but to
the invariability of practic1e and the habit has to be proved by totality of facts.
(See Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh v. MM Mehta, Commissioner ofPolice,
[1995] 3 sec 237).

The expression "habitually" is very significant. A person is said to be
I-I
R.KALAVATHlv. STATEOFTAMILNADU[PASAYAT,J.] 79
a habitual criminal who by force of habit or inward disposition is accustomed A
to commit crimes. It implies commission of such crimes repeatedly or
persistently and prima facie there should be continuity in the commission of
those offences. (See: Ayub alias Pappukhan Nawabkhan Pathan v. S.N Sinha,
[l 990J 4 sec 552).

From one single transaction though consisting of several acts, a habit B
cannot be attributed to a person.

Judged in the background of legal position delineated above the order
of detention cannot be maintained because it only refers to one act. There is
also no material to justify the conclusion that the accused was habitually C
committing crime. There is no reference to any other crime. Therefore, the
order of detention cannot be maintained. The High Court has not considered
this aspect in the proper perspective. The order of detention in respect of the
detenu which was passed by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai on 1.8.2005
is quashed. The order of the High Court is set aside. Detenu be released from
detention forthwith unless required to be otherwise detained. D
The appeal is allowed.

D.G. Appeal allowed .
• .J