Anjalai vs The Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department and The Commissioner of Police

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner by name Anjalai, challenges the impugned order of detention dated 26.08.2005, detaining her son

Rajkumar @ Raj, as "" Goonda"" u/s 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders,

Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (in short "" Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982"").

Heard both sides.

The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the Sponsoring authority in the requisition for remand has

sought for remand in respect of ground case in Crime No. 20 78 of 2005 as well as 7th adverse case in Crime No.2067 of 2005 on the file of D.1

Triplicane Police Station, when the detenu was remanded only in respect of the ground case, the detaining authority ought to have taken note of the

7th adverse case, in which the detenu was not remanded which, according to the learned counsel, shows the nonapplication of mind on the part of

the Detaining authority.

As against this, learned Government Advocate has brought to our notice that the offences in the ground case, i.e., Crime No.2078 of 2 005 are

grave in nature attracting Sections 341, 336, 427, 392 r/w 397 and 506(ii) IPC, whereas the 7th adverse case relates to an offence u/s 392 IPC.

He also brought to our notice that similar objection was raised, considered and rejected by this Court on 24.01 .2006 in HCP.No.922 of 2005

(Karuppayee v. Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai and Anr.).

In the light of the above contention, we verified the requisition for remand made by the Sponsoring authority, the order passed by the learned

Magistrate as well as the offences involved in Crime Nos.20 78 and 2067 of 2005. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate,

since the offences in the ground case are grave in nature and the learned Magistrate remanded the detenu only in respect of the said crime number

and the Detaining authority has also considered the same, we are of the view that merely because there is no reference to 7th adverse case would

not affect the detention order passed by him. Accordingly, we reject the said contention.

Except the above said contention, no other contention was raised; hence, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.