MUTHULAKSHMI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The wife of the detenu has filed this habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the detention order dated 21.02.2010, whereby, in exercise of power under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982, the 1st respondent on the allegation that the detenu is a 'Goonda' within the meaning of the said Act, has detained the husband of the petitioner.

(2.) The affidavit and the materials filed in support of the petition, in particular the order under challenge, are looked into. The Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendations made by the Sponsoring Authority that the said Navaneethakrihnan was involved in one adverse case in Kadayam Police Station Crime No.134/2009 u/ss.294(b), 452, 353, 324, 506(ii) IPC and also in the ground case in Crime No.35/2010, registered under Sections 294(b) and 307 IPC on the file of Ambasamudram Police Station for a crime that had taken place on 10.02.2010, in which he was arrested on the very next day and remanded to judicial custody, on scrutiny of the materials placed before him, the detaining authority, the 1st respondent herein, after recording his subjective satisfaction that the alleged detenu was so acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, branded him as a "Goonda" and ordered him to be detained under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, which is the subject matter of challenge before the Court.