SUBASH Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated 18. 2. 2004, passed by the Respondent No. 2, in exercise of power under section 3 (1) of 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 referred to as the act.

(2.) IN the grounds of detention, the detaining authority had referred to an incident dated 21. 4. 2004. It is alleged that the detenu and his three associates criminally intimidated the public and vendors in Chidambaram Chinnakadai Street junction and had used dangerous weapons. On the basis of the complaint filed, a case in Chidambaram Town Police Station Crime No. 171/2004 was registered under sections 392, 506 (ii) r/w. 397 IPC and 27 (1) Arms Act of 1959, 9 (b) (1) of the explosive Act, 1884 and 4 (1), 5 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908. The District magistrate referred to earlier involvement of the detenu in Chidambaram Town p. S Cr. No. 334/1998 dated 17. 10. 1998 under section 395 r/w. 149 IPC, Annamalai nagar P. S. Cr. No. 349/1998 dated 19. 10. 1998 under Sections 147, 148, 326, 324, 302 r/w. 149 IPC and Chidambaram Town P. S. Cr. No. 1169/2003 dated 17. 10. 2003 under Section 147, 148, 324, 307, 395, 506 (ii) IPC r/w. 9 (b) (1) of Explosive act, 25 (1) (b), 27 (1) Arms Act of 1959 and 4 (1), 5 of Explosive Substances Act.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that as per the definition, as contained in Section 2 (f) of the Act, sporadic commission of offences would not bring the offender within the purview of Section 2 (f) and the District Collector should be satisfied that the person habitually commits the offences. It is his further contention that the District collector had referred to two adverse cases of the year 1998 and the cases which had occurred at a distant past should not have been taken into account. It is further submitted by him that if those two adverse cases are taken out of consideration, being too remote in point of time, the detaining authority could not have come to a conclusion on the basis of the remaining two cases, namely, the adverse case dated 17. 10. 2003 and the ground case dated 24. 1. 2004, that the detenu was a Goonda.