R. KALAVATHI versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 74 · Decided: 03-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
R. KALA V ATHI 
V. 
THE ST A TE 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. 
G 
H 
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. 
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 
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 
Advanced law lexicon (3rd Edn.) by P. Ramanatha Aiyer, referred 
to. 
2.2. The expression "habitually" is very significant. A person is said 
D 
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 seekin

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.