R SRIJITH Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein challenges the impugned order of detention dated 15.10.2008 passed by the 2nd respondent, branding him as a 'Goonda' as contemplated 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).

(2.) FROM the detention order, it is seen that on a complaint given by one Madalaimuthu, Parish Priest, the ground case was registered in Crime No.788 of 2008 on the file of B-9, Saravanampatty Police Station, Coimbatore City. In the said complaint, it has been alleged that on 08.10.2008, a consultative meeting was held in connection with church car festival proposed to be held on 19.10.2008, which lasted till 1.00 hour; thereafter, all the members have left; on 09.10.2008 at 4.40 hours when the complainant had been to the church for prayer, he noticed that a glass pane of cabin situated in front of the church in which the statue of Infant Jesus placed was broken and that the statue of Infant Jesus inside the cabin was also damaged. Based on the said complaint of Madalaimuthu, Parish Priest, a case has been registered in Crime No.788 of 2008 by the 3rd respondent for the offences punishable under sections 448, 427 and 295 IPC. Subsequently, the sections of law were altered to sections 153-A, 448, 295 IPC and section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act 1992. Pursuant to the registration of the first information report, the 3rd respondent took up the investigation and examined the witnesses and arrested the detenu at 2.00 hours on 11.10.2008 and he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore, on 11.10.2008 and remanded to judicial custody till 24.10.2008. Since the intention of the detenu is to create communal disharmony between the Hindu and Christian religions by causing damage to the statue of Infant Jesus by throwing a stone, the 3rd respondent made a request to the 2nd respondent to take necessary action under Section 3(1) of the Act 14 of 1982 as against the detenu.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detention order dated 15.10.2008 is vitiated on the following grounds: