JOTHILAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu, Venkatesan, son of Devaraj, who was incarcerated by order dated 17. 2. 2007 of the second respondent under Section 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) branding him as Goonda, has preferred this writ petition for issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records leading to the detention of her husband under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order dated 17. 2. 2007 on the file of the second respondent in the proceedings B. D. F. G. I. S. S. V. No. 2/2007, to quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce the body and person of the detenu and set him at liberty.

(2.) THE order of detention dated 17. 2. 2007 came to be passed based on the ground case said to have taken place on 1. 2. 2007 at about 7 p. m. , complaint against which was lodged by one V. Karnan. It is alleged that while Karnan was selling guava and other fruits in a push cart, the detenu came there and demanded mamool and when the complainant questioned "why I should give mamool?" and "why, often you are demanding mamool?", the detenu turned down the push cart, resulting in rolling down, scattering and damage of the fruits. The detenu then took two soda bottles in the nearby petty shop and put one bottle and broke it with other and on seeing this the people surrounding scattered in fear and panic. The detenu also tried to stab the complainant with a pen knife, however the complainant prevented the detenu from doing so and during the course he sustained injuries on his left hand and blood poured out. Based on the said complaint, the Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Gummidipoondi Police Station in Crime No. 21 of 2007 under Sections 341, 294 (b), 427 and 307 IPC for investigation, apprehended the detenu and now the detenu is in remand in Central Prison, Puzhal. The second respondent, taking note of the above case as a ground case and finding that there are 6 adverse cases pending against the detenu for various offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 324, 380, 457, 506 (ii) and 511 IPC, having satisfied that there is a compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, ordered his detention dubbing him as a Goonda.

(3.) SINCE Mrs. R. Subadra Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the impugned order of detention dated 17. 2. 2007 mainly on the ground of delay in considering the representation dated 27. 2. 2007 made on behalf of the detenu, we do not propose to go into the other aspects of the case.