ARUMUGAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by name Arumugam, who is the father of the detenu by name Sundhar, challenges the impugned order of detention dated 30.06.2006, detaining him as "Goonda" 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, 1981 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).

(2.) HEARD both sides.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, by drawing our attention to para-4 of the grounds of detention, contended that the remand was extended periodically, but there was no awareness of all those details by the detaining authority. It is true that in paragraph-4 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has referred the fact that the detenu was on remand in crime No.818/2006 of K.1 Sembium Police Station, but he has not referred to the remand extension order. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in the earlier paragraph, viz., para-3 the detaining authority has referred to the fact that the Inspector of Police during the course of investigation produced the detenu before the 5th Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai who lodged him in the Central Prison, Chennai as remand prisoner till 30.6.2006. All other details are available in the same paragraph of the grounds of detention accordingly, we reject the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.