ANJALAI KANCHIPURAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the mother of the detenue and challenge is made to the order of detention dated 10.04.2013 made in B.D.F.G.I.S.S.V. No. 63/2013, passed by the 2nd respondent under which the detenue has been branded as a Bootlegger and detained under 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, hereinafter referred to as Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. As per the grounds of detention dated 10.04.2013, the detenue came to the adverse notice in the following cases:-- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_622_MADLJ(CRI)3_2013_1.html</FRM>

(2.) In para-3 of the grounds of detention, it is stated among other things that the detenue is also involved in the commission of the offence, which took place on 11.04.2013 morning, which led to the registration of a case by Inspector of Police, PEW, Mamallapuram @ Thirukalukundram in Crime No. 85 of 2013 under Sections 4(1)(i), 4(1)(aaa), 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act r/w 7 & 11 of RS Rules 2000. It is further stated that the detenue was arrested on the same day i.e. on 11.04.2013 at 06.00 hours and was produced before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thirukalukundram, on the same day and remanded to judicial custody till 28.03.2013. The detaining authority, on being satisfied upon the materials placed before him that the activities of the detenue are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, clamped the order of detention. Challenging the said order, petitioner is before this Court in this habeas corpus petition.

(3.) Though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised several grounds to attack the impugned order of detention, he mainly focussed his argument on the ground that the order of detention is passed on 10.04.2013 taking into consideration the ground case which is alleged to have taken place on 11.04.2013 and submits that the factum of non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority is explicitly evident and, therefore, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed on this sole ground.