P SARASWATHI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the wife of the detenu Velumani alias Gopi, who had been detained as a Goonda as contemplated under Sec.2(f) of the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982.

(2.) THE detenu has two adverse cases, which are of the years 1994 and 1997. THE ground case on which the order of detention was passed had taken place on 22.8.1998 at about 7 p.m. at Thiruvottriyur High Road. While demanding mamool, the detenu seems to have terrorised the fruit vendor Kandan saying, "TAMIL" While the said Kandan resisted to give mamool, the detenu picked up a knife from his back and rushed to cut him saying "TAMIL" THE police party, who were patrolling that area, rushed to the scene. On seeing the police, the detenu felt offended and stated as follows: "TAMIL" He also threatened the police party as well as the public from nearing him. Ultimately, the police party overpowered, took custody and brought him to H5 New Washermenpet Police Station and a case was registered in Crime No.625 of 1999 under Secs.341, 336, 427, 307 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. THEreafter, the impugned order of detention was passed.

(3.) SO far as the second ground of attack that the family members of the detenu have not been informed about the detention of the detenu is concerned, we find from the records that a messenger went to the house of the detenu twice. Since the house of the detenu was found locked, the communication was served by affixture. The affixture had been attested by two independent witnesses who are the resident's in the nearby place. Hence, it cannot be said that the family members of the detenu were not informed about the detention of the detenu. Hence, the second ground also is without any substance.