Dhandapani vs The State of Tamil Nadu

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner by name Dhandapani, who was detained as a ""Goonda"" as contemplated u/s 3(1) of 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), by the impugned detention order dated 30.12.2005, challenges the same in this Petition.

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

At the foremost the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the fact that in the First Information Report relating to the

adverse case said to have taken place on 25.10.2005, there is no reference to the name of the detenu and it merely refers ""unknown person

whereas in the FIR relating to the ground case said to have taken place on 26.10.2005, the name of the detenu is shown as second accused and in

the absence of clarification by the authority concerned, the detention order is liable to be quashed. On verification of all the materials, we are

unable to accept the said contention. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor though the FIR relating to the adverse case

merely refers ""unknown person"", in the confession statement the detenu has admitted the occurrence relating to the adverse case. The said

confession statement is available at page 67 of the paper book supplied to the detenu. It is also brought to our notice that the remand report also

contains the name of the detenu as an accused in the adverse case. In such circumstances, we find no substance in the first contention raised by the

learned Counsel for the petitioner.

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner then submitted that seizure was effected in four places within two hours, which is highly

impossible. Hence, all the cases have been foisted against the detenu. Hereagain, it is not the case of the petitioner that the police parties were not

having vehicle or other modern equipments. On the other hand, within the time of two hours, it would be possible to seize those articles from four

places. Accordingly, we reject the second contention also.

Finally, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the intimation relating to passing of the detention order was sent in a

cyclostyled form. We verified the same. The said intimation contains all the required details. In such circumstances, we are unable to accept the

said contention also.

In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any ground for interference. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same is

dismissed.