GOVINDAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' ['HCP' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by brother of detenu assailing a 'preventive detention order dtd. 26/9/2022 bearing reference D.O.No.C2/54/2022' [hereinafter 'impugned detention order' for the sake of convenience and brevity]. To be noted, fifth respondent is the sponsoring authority and second respondent is the detaining authority as impugned detention order has been made by second respondent.

(2.) Impugned detention order has been made under 'The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders, Sandoffenders, Sexual-offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982)' [hereinafter 'Act 14 of 1982' for the sake of convenience and clarity] on the premise that the detenu is a 'Bootlegger' within the meaning of Sec. 2(b) of Act 14 of 1982.

(3.) There are two adverse cases and one ground case. The ground case which is the substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.271 of 2022 on the file of Chinnasalem Police Station for alleged offences under Ss. 4(1)(i), 4(1)(aaa), 4(1-A) and 14A of 'The Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 (Tamil Nadu Act No.10 of 1937)' [hereinafter 'Act 10 of 1937' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. Owing to the nature of the challenge to the impugned detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix or be detained further by facts.