V UMA SHENBAGAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 04.05.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, detaining Sudhagar alias Vasanth and Tmt.Vasanthi alias Shanthi alias Lakshmi as Immoral Traffic Offenders based upon two adverse cases and a ground case, the occurrence of which has taken place on 19.4.2003 at about 8.00 p.m. is challenged by the relative of the detenus in these two Petitions.

(2.) In the grounds of detention, it was contended that on 19.04.2003 at about 8.00 p.m. when the Inspector of Police, Anti Vice Squad, Chennai City upon reliable information rushed to the spot at No.27/2, Raji Lane, Ayanavaram, Chennai, at 8.40 p.m. it was found that the detenus were indulging in the offence of immoral traffic at the spot. Upon seeing the detenus and as the Grade I Police Thiru Nagarajan was made to get introduced with them, the detenus were found to have induced Thiru Nagarajan to have sexual intercourse with any of the available girls in the above premises on demand of Rs.2,000/- for the same. Thiru Nagarajan replied them that he had no money and informed them that he will come there in a short time and immediately had reported the fact to the Inspector of Police Thiru T.P. Rajendran, who till then was keeping himself concealed in a nearby place and soon after such information from Thiru Nagarajan,the squad rushed to the place of occurrence. Annoyed over the interference, the detenus got enraged and while the detenue Vasanthi asked the other detenu Sudhagar to do away with the police, the other detenu Sudhagar also was said to have taken out a knife from his hip and rushed to stab Thiru Nagarajan, Police Constable which was warded off. The detenue Vasanthi was also said to have taken out a brandy bottle, hurled the same against the police party and when they moved aside, the bottle fell on the road side, broken into pieces and the broken pieces scattered all over the place. Taking note of all these facts of occurrence, the nearby residents have rushed themselves hither and thither and thus, there was confusion, turmoil, and disorder in the public place.

(3.) Based upon this occurrence, the Detaining Authority considered that the detenus were found committed crimes and also acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order by forcing men against their wish to have sexual intercourse with woman and as such, they have come under the definition of Immoral Traffic Offender as contemplated under Section 2(g) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.