C.O. Arumugam And Ors. vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. on 5 October, 1989
11. One of the arguments raised by the learned Counsel for
the petitioner is whether a person who has been implicated in a
solitary case by any stretch of imagination, can be branded as Goonda
13/16
http://www.judis.nic.in
HCP.(MD) No.1077 of 2019
within the meaning of Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Prevention of
Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders,
Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-Grabbers
and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (T.N.Act 14 of 1982). This issue is no
longer res integra. Since a Full Bench of this Court in Arumugam vs.
State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home,
Prohibition & Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chenni-9 and
another reported in 2011 (4) CTC 353 has held that even a single
incident giving rise to a single case would be sufficient and if that
single case is of the nature as defined in Section 3 of the Act, there
can be a valid order of detention. In view of all the above, we find no
infirmity in the order detaining the detenu Muthupandi, S/o.Kumar
under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of
Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral
Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates
Act, 1982 (T.N.Act 14 of 1982).