A C BHARATHI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner calls in question legality of the order of detention 10. 4. 2007 passed by the first respondent ordering detention of her husband , Paulraj, son of Chandran, aged about 28 years (hereinafter referred to as ,the detenu, ). The aforesaid detenu was detained under Section 3 (2) 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 (in short ,the Act,) branding him as a "goonda".

(2.) THE order of detention dated 10. 4. 2007 was passed on the basis of ground case in Crime No. 224 of 2007 for alleged commission of offences under Sections 341, 336, 427, 397 and 506 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the detenu was that on 2. 4. 2007 at about 3. 15 p. m. , when one Sekar, was returning to his house, after attending his work in a private company, the detenu and one Subramani, who were standing at the Tambu Samy Street Junction, wrongfully restrained him, pulled him, beat him and the detenu threatened him to hand over the gold ring and the cash with him. As Sekar refused to hand over the same, the detenu took out a knife and rushed to cut. Sekar warded off the attack with his right hand and during the course knife fell over his right hand and caused bleeding injury to him. The detenu tried to remove his gold ring and kicked him over his abdomen. The detenu snatched the gold ring and also took away Rs. 350/- from the shirt pocket of Sekar. Sekar, noticing that the detenu and Subramani were trying to escape, raised hue and cry. The detenu and his associate threatened the public who came to the spot that they would be killed and the detenu picked up stones from the roadside and pelted the same against the detenu. The nearby shopkeepers closed down their shops out of fear of danger to their lives and properties. At the same time the police personnel attached to G3, Kilpauk Police Station came to the spot and apprehended the detenu and his associate. That apart, the detaining authority also took note of the four adverse cases pending against the detenu in Crime Nos. 3731 of 2005, 64 of 2007, 65 of 2007 and 195 of 2007 all for the offence punishable under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code. The detaining authority having satisfied that the detenu is habitually committing the crime and his activities are prejudicial to maintenance of public order, passed the impugned order branding him as a ,goonda".

(3.) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even though the detaining authority has observed that the detenu was arrested and remanded in Crime Nos. 64, 65 and 224 of 2007 on the file of G3 Kilpauk Police Station, the materials furnished to the detenu disclose that the detenu was remanded only with reference to Crime No. 224 of 2007 and no materials were furnished to him to show that he was remanded in Crime Nos. 64 and 65 of 2007.