M SARAVANAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the brother of detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2nd respondent passed in BDFGISSV No. 127 of 2013 dated 04.09.2013. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following case:

(2.) Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the ground that inspite of detenu's request vide his representation to furnish the document relied on by the detaining authority for detaining him, the said material document has not been supplied to the detenu, which is against the constitutional mandate and therefore, on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

(3.) Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, by taking us to the counter, has contended that the detenu along with other accused persons has committed serious offence under Sections 147, 148, 450, 294(b), 506(ii), 307, 302 r/w 120(b), 109 and 149 IPC and a charge sheet was also filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Chengalpet, which was taken on file vide PRC No. 24 of 2012 dated 25.02.2012. Further contention of learned Additional Public Prosecutor is that owing to his involvement in several cases, the detenu has been branded as History Sheeted Rowdy in H.S. No. 636 of 2013 in D-1, Chengalpet Town Police Station, Kancheepuram District and therefore, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent is justifiable one, taking into account the gravity of offences committed by him.