ORDER

P.D. Dinakaran, J.—The petitioner, mother of the detenu, Sudhagar, son of Mani @ Muthukumar, who was incarcerated by order dated 19.4.2007 of the second respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offender, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a Goonda, seeks a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed in Memo No. 169/BDFGISSV/2007, to set aside the same and to direct the respondents to produce the detenu, now confined at Central Prison, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.

2. The ground case, based on which the impugned order of detention was passed, has taken place on 2.4.2007 at about 13.00 hours. At that time, the detenu went to the mobile canteen of the complainant and demanded Rs.100 as mamool. When the complainant questioned the same, the detenu took out a knife and rushed to stab on his neck, which was fell on the left hand of the complainant causing bleeding injury. The complainant raised hue and cry. The public who came for his rescue were threatened by the detenu at the point of knife. The detenu picked up the stones from the road side and pelted the same, which scattered all over the roadside and made the public to run on all sides seeking shelter resulting in traffic dislocation. A case was registered in Crime No.660/2007 on the file of F2 Egmore Police Station, for the offence punishable under Sections 384, 324, 307, 336 and 506(2), IPC.

3. The second respondent, taking note of the above case as a ground case and five adverse cases in Crime Nos. 72/2001, 44/2003, 2745/2005, 627/2007 and 654/2007 on the file of F2, Egmore Police Station for the offence under Sections 324, 341, 326, 508(2), 294(b), 509, 506(2) and 392, IPC, ordered his detention dubbing him as a goonda.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, inviting our attention to the fact that the complainant even though had stated the name of the detenu in his complaint, had not chosen to state his name at the time of recording the Accident Register, contends that the impugned order of detention is vitiated on the ground of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority.

5. A perusal of the entire materials placed before us would reveal that in the FIR, which is found at page No. 68 of the booklet, the complainant had mentioned the name of the detenu as Sudhakar. However, in the Accident Register at page No. 92 of the booklet, it is mentioned as assault by three unknown persons. In our considered opinion, the said discrepancy, apparent on the face of the record, which would disclose the non-application of mind by the detaining authority, vitiates the impugned of detention. Accordingly, the order of detention is quashed. The habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.

Petition allowed.

*******