DHANDAPANI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (PETITION under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records relating to the detention order passed by the second respondent in No. C3. D. O. 59/2005 dated 30. 12. 2005, quash the same and produce the body of the detenu Dhandapani, Son of Vadivelu, 4th Cross Street, Sastri Nagar, Vellore, Vellore district detained in the Central Prison Vellore before this Court and set him at liberty.)The petitioner by name Dhandapani, who was detained as a "goonda" as contemplated under Section 3 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), by the impugned detention order dated 30. 12. 2005, challenges the same in this Petition.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

(3.) AT the foremost the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the fact that in the First Information Report relating to the adverse case said to have taken place on 25. 10. 2005, there is no reference to the name of the detenu and it merely refers "unknown person" whereas in the FIR relating to the ground case said to have taken place on 26. 10. 2005, the name of the detenu is shown as second accused and in the absence of clarification by the authority concerned, the detention order is liable to be quashed. On verification of all the materials, we are unable to accept the said contention. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor though the FIR relating to the adverse case merely refers "unknown person", in the confession statement the detenu has admitted the occurrence relating to the adverse case. The said confession statement is available at page 67 of the paper book supplied to the detenu. It is also brought to our notice that the remand report also contains the name of the detenu as an accused in the adverse case. In such circumstances, we find no substance in the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.