V PREKUMAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The father of the detenu is the petitioner. The detenu has been detained, branding him as a Goonda by virtue of the order passed by the detaining authority on 9.4.2003. Three grounds were urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking to quash the impugned order dated 9.4.2003. which are as follows:

(2.) On these aspects, we have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

(3.) In regard to the fact that the detenu was apprehended, it is true that in the grounds of detention, it is specifically stated that one Sathyanathan, first informant, Ahamed Kumar and Karthik @ Karthikeyan apprehended them at the spot and recovered the knife and later Sathyanathan lodged a complaint to the Police. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the contents in the F.I.R. given by Sathyanathan as well as other documents namely the statement of the witnesses including the Police officer would show that the police party came there on patrol duty and on seeing the incident, they rounded and arrested the detenu and others and took them to the Police Station and obtained a complaint from Sathyanathan.