C NAGARAJ Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the father of the detenu and challenge is made to the order of detention dated 28.08.2013 made in C3.D.O. No. 79/2013, passed by the second respondent under which the detenu has been branded as a 'Goonda' 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 28.08.2013, the detenu came to the adverse notice in the following cases:

(2.) In para 3 of the grounds of detention, it is stated that the detenu is also involved in the commission of the offence, which took place on 10.06.2013 at 13.00 hours, which led to the registration of a case by Inspector of Police, Gudiyatham Town Police Station, in Crime No. 506 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 392,427, 506(ii) I.P.C. It is further stated that the detenu was arrested on 30.06.2013 and produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham on the same day and remanded to judicial custody. The detaining authority, on being satisfied upon the materials placed before him that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, clamped the order of detention. Challenging the said order, petitioner is before this Court by way of this habeas corpus petition.

(3.) Amidst several grounds raised including the ground that the co-accused has already been released, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly focussed his argument on the ground that there is variation in the translated version of the remand order from that of the English version. Therefore, the subjective satisfaction arrived by the detaining authority is not well founded.