A GEETHA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, wife of the detenu by name Anandaraj @ Anand @ Anandan, who was detained as immoral traffic offender under Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982, challenges the same in this petition. The order of detention has been passed on the basis of ground case in Crime No. 175 /2005 on the file of Inspector of police, Anti Vice Squad, Chindadripet Police Station for offences under sections 3 (1), 4 (1), 5 (1), 6 (1) and 7 (1) of I. T. P. Act and Section 366 I. P. C. The allegation against the detenu is that on 5-9-2005 at 17. 15 hours, the Sub inspector of Police proceeded on rounds to watch whether any prostitution business is going on at Vadapalani, Arcot Road in Chennai City. While he was proceeding at Vadapalani, Arcot Road near Avichi School, the detenu who was sitting in a red colour Maruthi car bearing Registration No. TN-07-J-772 and doing prostitution business. The detaining authority has also taken note of 3 adverse cases wherein the detenu involved in prostitution business. The offences under Sections 3 (1), 4 (1), 5 (1), 6 (1), 7 (1) ITP Act and 366 IPC relate to keeping a brothel, living on the earnings of prostitution, procuring, inducing for the sake of prostitution, detaining women in premises where prostitution is carried on and doing prostitution in the vicinity of public place and abducting a women for prostitution as such punishable under i. T. P. Act and I. P. C. The investigation disclosed that the detenu Anandaraj used to get young innocent and poor girls who were under poverty from the nearby Andhra State under the guise of getting employment and induced and forced them to indulge in prostitution business and also took out a house at no. 3/120, Krishna Nagar, 2nd Street, Madhanandhapuram, Porur, Chennai and by keeping the procured young girls in the said premises and at times took them to different places in Chennai City in cars and compel them into prostitution and earn huge money with the help of his associates and living in the said earnings. The investigation further disclosed that the detenu and his associates are doing prostitution in Chennai City at Vadapalani, Arcot Road near Higher Secondary School and spoiling the lives of young youths. Taking note of all these aspects and materials that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and that recourse to normal criminal law would not have the desired effect in preventing him from indulging in such activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the detaining authority passed the impugned order declaring the detenu as an 'immoral traffic offender', detained and kept in custody at the central Prison, Chennai. The said order is under challenge in this petition.

(2.) HEARD Mr. R. Ravichandran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Abudukumar Rajarathinam, learned Government Advocate for respondents.

(3.) AT the foremost, learned counsel for the petitioner complained that the representation dated 25-9-2005 received by the detaining authority on 26-9-2005 has not been considered though the Government approved the order of detention only on 2-10-2005. According to the counsel, the said representation neither placed before the Advisory Board nor the Government, hence the ultimate order passed by the detaining authority is liable to be set aside. Learned Government Advocate by placing the entire records, contended that all the 6 representations submitted by the detenu/his relatives were placed before the Advisory Board as well as the Government and all of them were duly considered and rejected. He also contended that even the predetention representation dated 15-9-2005 was duly considered. We verified the records. It discloses that the pre-detention representation dated 15-9-2005 was considered and six representations made by the detenu and his relatives were duly placed before the Advisory Board as well as before the government. All those representations were duly considered and rejected. Even though it is incumbent on the part of the detaining authority/government to consider all the representations, in view of the fact that totally 7 representations have been made and were duly considered by the detaining authority/government, in the absence of information that in the representation dated 25-9-2005 the detenu has made new points, merely because the same was not considered by the Government, the detention order cannot be faulted with. We are satisfied that since the seven earlier representations of the detenu were duly considered, the detenu was in no way prejudiced; accordingly we reject the said contention.