BOOPATHY W/O RAJI @ RAJENDRAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE; GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT AND SUPERINTENDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mother of the detenu has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition for quashing the detention order dated 22.6.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Salem City, in exercise of power 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), hereinafter referred to as "the Act" read with Section 3(2) of the Act. The order of detention has been passed on the allegation that the detenu is found indulging in an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of pubic order and public peace.

(2.) The grounds of detention, which were served on the detenu, refer to two adverse cases, namely, Kannankurichi P.S. Cr. No. 875/05, wherein offences under Sections 341, 302 IPC r/w. 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 were alleged to have been committed on 4.4.2005 by the detenu and Kannankurichi P.S. Cr. No. 2593 of 2005, wherein offences under Sections 147, 148, 364, 506(ii), 302, 201 r/w. 149 IPC., were alleged to have been committed on 19.12.2005 by the detenu and other accused persons. The detenu had been released on bail in both the cases. The immediate cause for passing the order of detention is for the alleged offence under Sections 392 read with 397 IPC., allegedly committed by the detenu on 8.6.2006 in Cr. No. 977 of 2006 of Kannankurichi Police Station.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order of detention mainly on two grounds. Firstly, it is submitted that the ground case on which the order of detention has been passed relates to the offences allegedly committed by the detenu under Sections 392 and 397 IPC and the incident being a solitary of that nature against an individual, it cannot be said to be an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and therefore the order of detention is vitiated. In support of such contention, learned Counsel has placed reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in, (Darpan Kumar Sharma v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., 2003 SCC(Cri) 537 and, (R. Kalavathi v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., 2006 3 SCC(Cri) 11 and the Division Bench decision of this Court in, (Smt. Kausalya v. District Collector and District Magistrate, Kancheepuram and Anr., 2005 MadLJ(Cri) 612 The other contention of the petitioner is to the effect that the representation made on behalf of the detenu has not been disposed of expeditiously and at any rate there was undue delay in serving the rejection letter on the detenu.