P SANTHAMMAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

(2.) The present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the mother of the detenu, who is now in incarceration pursuant to the order of the detention passed by the second respondent on 9.1.2003 under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), hereinafter called as the Act, on the allegation that the detenu is a Goonda

(3.) In the grounds of detention, reference has been made to several past incidents of alleged involvement of the detenu in commission of several crimes punishable under Sections 379 and 392 IPC. The allegations indicate that those occurrences had taken place within the jurisdictions of Gudur police station and Nellore police station, which are within the territorial jurisdiction of Andhra Pradesh and not Tamil Nadu. In the aforesaid background, the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that since the past occurrences relating to adverse cases had occurred within the jurisdiction of Andhra Pradesh and not within the territorial jurisdiction of Tamil Nadu, the allegations in those cases could not have been considered for the purpose of passing the impugned order of detention. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that if those allegations are ignored, except the ground case, which allegedly occurred within the jurisdiction of Tamil Nadu, there are no other incidents before the detaining authority to come to a conclusion that the detenu was a habitual offender or Goonda as defined under the Act.