P VASANTHI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner wife of the detenu Prbhu @ Kili Prabhu, challenges the order of detention dated 26.11.2008 passed by the second respondent detaining him under 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) after he was identified as a "Goonda" since he had come to the adverse notice of the authorities on earlier occasions and that on 8.11.2008, he indulged in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

(3.) From the grounds of detention, it appears that the order of detention came to be passed since the detenu had come to the adverse notice of the authorities on three earlier occasions, that is (i) H.3 Tondiarpet P. S. Crime No.316 of 2007 registered under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 IPC; (ii) N. 4 Fishing Harbour P.S. Cr. No. 18 of 2008 registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307 and 506(2) IPC, and (iii) H.1 Washermenpet P.S. Cri. No. 795 of 2008 registered under Sections 384 and 506(h) IPC and that on 8.11.2008, he indulged in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, which resulted in the registration of the ground case in H.3 Tondiarpet P.S. Crime No.564 of 2008 registered under Sections 341, 427, 352, 336, 307, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. He was arrested and produced before the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and remanded till 21.11.2008, which was further extended up to 5.12.2008. As the detenu has involved in a number of cases, the sponsoring authority sponsored the case to the detaining authority, who, on consideration of the materials placed on record, satisfied himself that the detenu is a "Goonda" and found the compelling necessity of detaining him as per the provisions of Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 in order to prevent him from indulging in such activities in future which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and accordingly, passed the order of detention.