C VALLI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WIFE of the detenu challenges the impugned order of detention, dated 12/5/2008, detaining her husband as "Goonda", as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of dangerous activities of Boot leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982).

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner points out that in the first adverse case, the detenu was convicted under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and he had already undergone the punishment; and that the second adverse case and the ground case have been taken on file against the detenu with reference to two different occurrences that took place on the same day, namely on 8/4/2008, and both the cases are pending investigation and the detenu was arrested on 10/4/2008. By referring to paragraph No.3 of the ground of detention, wherein, it has been mentioned as follows:- "Due to his atrocious activities, the general public was scattered on all directions. The busiest vehicular traffic was affected for sometime.", and adverting to the following observation of the Detaining Authority at paragraph No.5,

(3.) THE occurrences pertaining to the second adverse case as well as the ground case took place on 8/4/2008. As per the allegation in the ground case, the detenu fisted the complainant with hand and threatened him while his associates (three in number) by brandishing the knife, took away a cash of Rs.130/-, a cheque for Rs.66,248/- and a cell phone. Further, the detenu and his associates threatened the complainant not to report the incident to anyone. Insofar as the second adverse case is concerned, on the same day, the detenu and his associates, assaulted and robbed away a sum of Rs.550/- and a cell phone from the complainant. Though the Detaining Authority has stated, "Due to atrocious activities, the general public was scattered on all directions. THE busiest vehicular traffic was affected for some time", the materials available would only substantiate that the activities of the detenu affected "law and order" and not "public order". Even as per the narration given by the Detaining Authority with reference to the occurrence, it could be seen that the detenu threatened the complainant not to divulge the incident to anyone, thereby, it could be inferred that the occurrence had taken place at a spot when there is no much public flow. On a careful scrutiny of the materials produced by the sponsoring authority, we hardly find any material to substantiate that the act of the detenu affected the public order and it is apparent that the Detaining Authority applied the usual language as if there arose a problem affecting "public order". In the absence of materials to substantiate that "public order" was adversely affected, we are of the view that there is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in making such observations as aforementioned and passing the ultimate order of detention. Had the Detaining Authority considered the "potentiality" of the act of the detenu instead of the "kind", he would not have misled himself in arriving at such conclusion.