LAWS(MAD)-2007-12-53

RANI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Decided On December 05, 2007
RANI Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu, dhandapani, son of Durai Kannan, who was incarcerated by order dated 02. 07. 2007 of the second respondent under the provisions of 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 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a Slum Grabber, and confined at central Prison, Chennai, seeks for the issuance of a writ of habeas Corpus to call for the records in connection with the said order of detention in Memo No. 281/bdfgissv/2007, to set aside the same and to direct the respondents to produce him before this Court and set him at liberty.

(2.) ON the basis of a complaint given by one thiyagarajan on 23. 02. 2006, stating that he purchased 78 cents of land at Injambakkam in the name of his wife meenakshi and that the detenu herein and others, impersonating the wife of the complainant, created forged power of attorney in the name of one Muthukrishnan as if it was executed by the real owner of the property with an intention to grab the said land, a case came to be registered by the Sub Inspector of Police, St. Thomas mount, Central Crime Branch, Chennai, in Cr. No. 27 of 2006 for offences punishable under Sections 419, 466, 468 read with 471 and 420 IPC. read with 120-B IPC as against the detenu and others, subsequent to which, the detenu was arrested on 04. 03. 2006. The detenu is alleged to have cheated a number of persons and grabbed their lands by creating forged documents and, under the guise of offering construction work, he collected huge money to the tune of rs. 2 crores. The Detaining Authority, taking note of the gravity of the offence perpetrated in an organised and systematic manner and the effect of the same on the society at large, concluded that he acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and detained him as a 'slum grabber'.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner challenges the order of detention on the sole ground that though the detenu was arrested as early as on 04. 03. 2006, the order of detention was passed much belatedly on 02. 07. 2007; thus, there was huge delay in passing the order of detention, which would go to the root of the detention order.