RANJITH S/O SUNDARA KONAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT; DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND; INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The detenu himself is the petitioner, who has been branded as 'Goonda' and detained 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) by the impugned order of detention dated 3.3.2008 passed by the second respondent herein.

(2.) The petitioner has five adverse cases apart from the ground case to his credit, all on the file of Othakadai Police Station, Madurai District. The first adverse case is in respect of Crime No. 94 of 1998 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 302 IPC read with Section 3(ii)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The second, third and fourth adverse cases are in respect of Crime Nos. 456 of 2003, 611 of 2006 & 376 of 2006 for the offence under Sections 399 & 402 IPC and the fifth adverse case is in respect of Crime No. 377 of 2007 for the offence under Sections 341, 392 r/w 397 & 506(ii) IPC. So far as the ground case is concerned, a complaint was lodged by one Malaichamy, S/o Rasu Thevar stating that on 27.2.2008 at about 8.00 hours, while the complainant was riding his bicycle near Sivalingam Theatre, Othakadai, the petitioner waylaid and intimidated him at knife point and robbed a cash of Rs. 150/- from him. The petitioner showed the knife towards public and threatened those who tried to catch him. On seeing this, the public ran helter-skelter in panic causing severe traffic jam in that area. The platform vendors ran out of fear and an atmosphere of fear, danger and terror prevailed in the minds of the public. The said complaint was registered in Crime No. 79 of 2008 for the offence under Sections 341, 392 r/w 397, 506(ii) IPC. As the sponsoring authority had come across similar activities of the petitioner, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, he had brought to the notice of the detaining authority by filing an affidavit. After applying his mind to the materials placed before him, the detaining authority by the impugned order dated 3.3.2008 has detained the petitioner.

(3.) The detention order is questioned by the petitioner on the following grounds: