Mrs. Dhanam vs The Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu and The Commissioner of Police

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner herein challenges the order of detention, dated 30.11.2005, detaining her son by name Ravi @ Ravikumar

as ''Goonda'' as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders,

Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

At the foremost, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that no family member was intimated regarding the passing of detention

order against the detenu. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, by placing the records, submitted that the detention order was passed on

30.11.2005, and that, on 03.12.2005, the same was intimated to one Elumalai/paternal uncle of the detenu. Accordingly, we reject the first

contention.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner, by drawing our attention to the remand order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, dated

14.11.2005, submitted that the detenu was singled out and detained as Goonda, however, other co-accused were not proceeded against under

the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.

Merely because no action was taken under Act 14 of 1982 in respect of the co-accused, the impugned order of detention cannot be faulted

with. Further, in the absence of involvement or other acts in respect of those accused, this Court cannot go into the said aspect. A perusal of the

grounds of detention amply shows that the Detaining Authority, after taking note of 8 adverse cases to the credit of the detenu from April, 2001 to

November, 2005; his involvement in the ground case; and on going through all other details; clamped the detention order in order to maintain

public peace and public order in the area in question. In such circumstances, we are unable to accept the said contention.

Finally, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that adverse case Nos. 4 to 8 are all foisted by the police and this aspect was not duly

considered by the Detaining Authority.

With regard to the said contention, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, after taking us through the relevant details relating to adverse case

Nos. 4 to 8 submitted that in all those cases, properties, viz., gold chains, bangles, Nokia cellphone etc. were recovered and mahazars prepared

are available at page Nos. 33,37, 44, 51 & 68 of the Paper book supplied to the detenu. It is also brought to our notice that, in the confessional

statement of the detenu, which is available at page Nos. 77 and 78 of the Paper Book, wherein, the detenu himself admitted the guilt.

On going through those details, which are available in the Paper Book, we are of the view that it cannot be claimed that all those adverse cases,

particularly 4 to 8, were foisted without any basis/material. Accordingly, we reject the said contention also.

No other contention has been raised, HCP fails and the same is dismissed.