SHAKUNTALA Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE mother of the detenu has filed the Habeas Corpus Petition seeking for quashing the Order of detention, dated 26.8.2009, bearing No.264/2009, passed by the second respondent.

(2.) ON the recommendation made by the Sponsoring Authority citing three adverse cases in Crime No. 588/2009, F2 Egmore Police Station Crime No.590/2009, F2 Egmore Police Station and Crime No.582/2009, F1 Chintadripet Police Station and the ground case in Crime No.599/2009, F2 Egmore Police Station, and after looking into the materials available, the second respondent, the Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police, formed an opinion that the detenu was to be termed as GOONDA since his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and with a view to prevent him from indulging in such activities in future, the order of detention, dated 26.8.2009, was passed. The said order is under challenge in this Petition.

(3.) A perusal of the paper book shows that the materials relating to the third adverse case, Crime No. 582/2009 on the file of F1 Chintadripet Police Station registered for the alleged offences under Section 336, 341, 427, 397 and 506(2), IPC, are not furnished and on the contrary, the materials pertaining to the case in Crime No. 197/09 on the file of F1 Chintadripet Police Station are furnished in the Paper book, which is unconnected and not referred to in the grounds of detention. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was omission to furnish relevant materials pertaining to the third adverse case and the extraneous materials have been relied on by the Detaining Authority is well founded and on this ground alone, the order of detention is liable to be set aside.