BABU Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned order of detention dated 30.01.2007, passed by the second respondent, branding the petitioner herein as Goonda and directing his detention under Sec.3 (1) 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), is challenged in this writ petition by the detenu himself.

(2.) According to the detaining authority, viz. , the second respondent, the ground case occurrence is said to have taken place on 07.01.2007 at 10.00 hours. The complainant by name Somasundaram is a fruit vendor doing business in front of Rajaji Market at Adisanpettai. The accused detenu came to his place of business and, by threatening and uttering filthy words, demanded money from the complainant. When the complainant refused, he took a knife and tried to assault him. The complainant prevented the attack and in that transaction, he sustained simple injury, however, the accused could take away Rs.300/- from the complainant's pocket. Hearing the hue and cry raised by the complainant, neighbours gathered at that place, and the accused, by showing knife and stopping the vehicles passing thereby ran away through Mettu Street. Due to the vandal activities of the detenu, the general public ran to safer places and the normalcy of the area came to a standstill. On receipt of complaint from the complainant, the Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Vinshnu Kanchi Police Station Cr. No.7/2007 under Sec.294 (b), 506 (ii), 307 and 394 IPC. The Detaining Authority, taking note of six adverse cases to the credit of the detenu and considering his activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, clamped the detention order on him.

(3.) The core contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/detenu assailing the order of detention is that while the adverse cases referred to in the grounds of detention relate to offences punishable under Sections 457, 461 and 380 (theft cases, which do not attract law and order problem), the solitary instance of robbery mentioned in the ground case is not relevant for sustaining the order of detention. The learned counsel, in support of the said plea, relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in DARPAN KUMAR SHARMA alias DHARBAN KUMAR SHARMA V/s. STATE OF TAMIL NADU,2003 1 Crimes 446.