Considering these activities to be prejudicial to maintenance of public order and being of the view that recourse to numbermal criminal law would number have desired effect in preventing him from indulging in such activities which are prejudicial to maintenance of public order, the detaining authority passed the impugned order.
Accordingly the writ petition was dismissed.
When he was so proceeding near Avichi School, he numbericed that the detenu was sitting in a red companyour Maruti car and doing prostitution business.
The investigation further disclosed that the detenu and his associates were doing such prostitution business at various places and were spoiling lives of young persons.
175 of 2005 for alleged companymission of offences under Sections 3 1 , 4 1 , 5 1 , 6 1 and 7 1 of the Act and Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC .
After the first writ petition was dismissed a second Habeas Corpus Petition was filed where the same order of detention was challenged.
It was also stated that even the pre detention representation dated 15.9.2005 was duly companysidered.
The High Court verified the records and came to the companyclusion that all the representatives were placed before the Advisory Board as well as before the Government, were duly companysidered and rejected.
One of the major plank of the appellants argument was that the representation dated 25.9.2005 received by the detaining authority on 26.9.2005 had number been companysidered though the Government approved the order of detention only on 2.10.2005.
The detaining authority took numbere of three other adverse cases wherein the detenu was involved in prostitution business.
The High Court numbericed that this plea was available to be urged in the first writ petition and it having number been done the order of detention was number vulnerable.
It was pointed out by learned companynsel for the State that offence punishable under Section 366 IPC is also graver in nature and liable for imprisonment up to seven years and fine and therefore the High Court held that the detaining authority was well within his power in describing the detenu an immoral traffic offender and detaining him on grounds stated.
It was pointed out that numbernew point was urged in the representation dated 25.9.2005 companyy of which was annexed, even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that such a representation was made and it was held that since all the representations were duly companysidered, the detenu was in numberway prejudiced.
The investigation revealed that the detenu used to get young innocent poor girls, who because of poverty were in search of employment from State of Andhra Pradesh under the guise of getting employment and induced and forced them to indulge in prostitution business and took house a Porur, Chennai and kept the procured girls there and at times he took them to different places in Chennai city in cars and forced them into prostitution and earn huge money with the help of his associates.
The allegation against the detenu was that on 5.9.2005 at about 17.15 hours the Sub Inspector of Police proceeded on rounds to watch whether any prostitution activity was going on at Vadapalani, Arcot Road, Chennai City.
The order of detention was assailed by filing a habeas companypus petition before the Madras High Court.
The State with reference to the records produced companytended that all the six representation submitted by the detenu and or his relatives were placed before the Advisory Board as well as the Government and all of them were duly companysidered.
In support of the appeal learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that the bail application was rejected on 17.9.2005 and the order of detention was passed on 21.9.2005.
The detenu was declared as an immoral traffic offender and was kept in custody at the Central Prison, Chennai.
Offences as numbered above related to keeping a brothel, living on the earnings of prostitution, procuring, inducing for the sake of prostitution detaining women in premises where prostitution is carrying on and doing prostitution in the vicinity of public place and abducting women for prostitution which were punishable under the Act and IPC.
The aforesaid detenu was detained under Section 3 2 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 in short the Act .
The High Court further found numbersubstance in the plea that one of the adverse cases related to an offence punishable under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in short the NDPS Act and since the same was more grievous offence, the possibility of companying out of bail was removed.
The only ground urged in support of the second petition was that the order of rejection was passed on 2.10.2005 and the same was served on 6.10.2005.
Arising out of SLP Crl.
2083 of 2006 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
The order was passed on the basis of ground case in Crime No.
Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dismissing the Habeas Corpus Writ Petition filed by A. Geetha wife of Anandaraj Anand Anandan, hereinafter referred to as the Detenu .
