RENGASAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT; DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Habeas Corpus Petition, the Petitioner as a father of the Detenu, Elumalai, challenges the order passed by the 2nd Respondent, whereby the Detenu was detained branding him as a "Goonda" as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bookleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (in short "Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982).

(2.) The detenu had earlier come to adverse notice in three cases, namely crime No. 518/2006 under Section 366(A) @ 376 IPC on the file of Samayapuram Police Station, crime No. 460/2007 under Section 41(d) r/w 102 Cr.P.C @ 65 MCP Act on the file of Contonment Police Station and crime No. 459/2007 under Section 41 and 102 Cr.P.C @ 379 IPC on the file of the Samayuapuram Police Station. The ground case in crime No. 309/2008 under Section 392 IPC on the file of the Sirunagar P.S. was registered on the complaint given by one Rajasekaran alleging that his TVS Suzuki two wheeler Motor cycle bearing Registration No. TN 45-V-9245, stopped near bridge inTrichy-Chennai National Highway to attend the nature call, the accused came with an iron rod, threatened them and demanded money and since he refused to give money the detenue/accused Elumalai put his hand into Rajasejkaran's pocket and took Rs. 200 and also the TVS Suzuki vehicle. On being satisfied that the Detenu has acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order committing crimes of threatening the public on the point of deadly weapons and branding him as a Goonda as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Book-leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (in short "Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982).

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Detenu has involved in three adverse case and one ground case. The first adverse case is in crime No. 518/2006 under Section 366(A) @ 376 IPC on the file of Samayapuram Police Station and the date of occurrence is alleged to be on 18.07.2006; the next adverse case is in crime No. 460/2007 under Section 41(d) r/w 102 Cr.P.C @ 65 MCP Act on the file of Contonment Police Station and the date of occurrence is alleged to be on 05.05.2007 and the last adverse case in crime No. 459/2007 under Section 41 and 102 Cr.P.C @ 379 IPC on the file of the Samayapuram Police Station and the date of occurrence is alleged to be on 11.10.2007. All the three adverse cases are only against the individual and the ground case is Sirunagar P.S. Crime No. 309 of 2008 has been registered under Section 392 IPC and the occurrence alleged to have been taken place on 18.09.2008. So, there is no public tranquility of public order, breach of law likely to cause disturbs of public order. To substantiate his contention, he relied upon the decisions reported in, Mannar @ Ezhilarasan @ Suresh @ Arif v. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 9,2008 1 MLJ(Crl) 318 Kausalya v. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kancheepuram,2005 MLJ(Crl) 612 Darpan Kumar Sharma Alias Dharban Kumar Sharma., 2003 2 SCC 313 Hence, the learned Counsel for the petitioner prayed to quash the detention order.