For the first time in Tamil Nadu, economic offender detained under Goondas Act
Based on the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police (South Zone), Economic Offences Wing, Virudhunagar Collector N. O. Sukhaputra, has ordered detention of one S. Gangadaran of Sankarankoil who had been arrested for having cheated 239 persons to the tune of ₹12 crore.
A statement said that based on complaints received from several people regarding the cheating done by Gangadaran in the guise of giving them franchise for a chain of biriyani shops, the accused was arrested on July 7.
The statement added that a Government Order dated July 8, 2025, permitted officials to detain accused involved economic offences under the Goondas Act.
Based on the new G.O., the detention order was issued and was served to the accused on August 3 at Madurai Central Prison where he had been lodged.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
14 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
State speeds up process to attach properties of firm duping investors
Mumbai: The Maharashtra government wants to speed up the process of attaching properties of firms involved in cheating and swindling investors' money. It has stipulated specific deadlines for the police and district collectors, among other authorities, to submit proposals to issue a government notification necessary for attaching such properties. Mumbai, India. Jan 07, 2025: Investors gathered in large numbers outside the office of Torres Jewellers in Dadar, Mumbai, demanding the return of their principal amounts after the company failed to pay the promised returns on its investment schemes. The Mumbai police booked the company's directors for committing multi-million fraud. Mumbai, India. Jan 05, 2025. (Photo by Raju Shinde/HT Photo) (Hindustan Times) The state government has given district collectors 10 working days to respond to such proposals with recommendations and another 10 days to the joint commissioner of police or additional director general of police to scrutinise the proposals and submit them to the government for issuing orders. The state home department issued an order to this effect on Tuesday. The decision was taken after the government noted delays in receiving proposals from the administration, which slowed down the process of delivering justice to victims, officials said. In 1999, the state government had introduced a legislation to curb incidents of fraud through Ponzi schemes, which were impacting investors mainly from the middle class and people from poor economic backgrounds. The act empowered the government to issue an order to attach the money or the properties of the accused firms and their directors. However, the properties can be attached only by issuing a government notification after senior police officers—either the joint commissioner of police (Economic Offences Wing) or the joint commissioner of police (Law and Order) in Mumbai, and the superintendent of police for the rest of the state—submit a proposal for the same. Once the proposal is moved, the district collector is expected to verify the details and return the file to the concerned police officers with their recommendations. 'The district collector, after verifying the proposal, must process it along with all necessary recommendations, and return the file within 10 working days to the concerned police officials,' stated the order issued on Tuesday. 'It shall be the responsibility of the investigating officer of the concerned offence to obtain the proposal with necessary recommendations from the office of the district collector,' the order said. After receiving the proposal, the concerned police officers are expected to submit the proposal to the additional director general of police (Economic Offences Wing). 'The additional director general of police (Economic Offences Wing), Maharashtra, shall examine or scrutinise the proposal received along with the recommendations of the district collector and shall submit the proposal to the government within 10 working days,' the order said. However, while following this procedure, the government observed that it was not receiving the proposals within the expected timeframe, either because of a delay from the district collector or the additional director general of police (Economic Offences Wing), said a senior official from the state home department. In some cases, the government receives a proposal from only one office, either from the district collector or from the EOW, and a significant delay occurs in receiving the corresponding proposal from the other office, the official added. 'It has been found that if any discrepancies are noticed, a considerable amount of time is lost in getting clarifications from the respective offices. Following this, the fresh order has been issued to streamline the process and proposals at the earliest for further action,' the official said. This is why the government decided to step in. The move comes against the backdrop of recent cases such as the Torres jewellery fraud. The brand's parent company, Platinum Hern Pvt Ltd, was accused of cheating investors of crores of rupees through a combination of Ponzi and multi-level marketing schemes. The firm duped investors by luring them with promises of 2%-9% weekly returns on investments in jewellery and gemstones, while misleading them with inflated prices and false appreciation claims.
The Hindu
a day ago
- The Hindu
For the first time in Tamil Nadu, economic offender detained under Goondas Act
In a first of its kind, an economic offender has been detained under Goondas Act in Tamil Nadu. Based on the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police (South Zone), Economic Offences Wing, Virudhunagar Collector N. O. Sukhaputra, has ordered detention of one S. Gangadaran of Sankarankoil who had been arrested for having cheated 239 persons to the tune of ₹12 crore. A statement said that based on complaints received from several people regarding the cheating done by Gangadaran in the guise of giving them franchise for a chain of biriyani shops, the accused was arrested on July 7. The statement added that a Government Order dated July 8, 2025, permitted officials to detain accused involved economic offences under the Goondas Act. Based on the new G.O., the detention order was issued and was served to the accused on August 3 at Madurai Central Prison where he had been lodged.
The Hindu
a day ago
- The Hindu
Armstrong murder: Madras High Court quashes detention of 17 accused under Goondas Act
Wondering how Greater Chennai Commissioner of Police A. Arun could have scrutinised 14,000 pages of voluminous documents in a single day, the Madras High Court on Wednesday (August 6, 2025) quashed the preventive detention orders passed by him against 17 accused in the murder of Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) Tamil Nadu unit president K. Armstrong. A Division Bench of Justices M.S. Ramesh and V. Lakshminarayanan pointed out that the sponsoring authority (Assistant Commissioner of Police, Koyambedu Range) under the Goondas Act had submitted a proposal before the detaining authority (Commissioner of Police) on September 19, 2024, along with around 14,000 pages of supporting materials. The detaining authority had accepted the proposal and passed the detention orders on the same day. Allowing a batch of habeas corpus petitions filed against the detention orders, the judges agreed with the detainees' counsel that it would be humanly impossible for an indvidual to go through such voluminous documents in a single day and take a decision after applying his mind. 'The detaining authority appears to have scrutinised approximately 14,000 pages in one single day... which is an impossible task for any human being... In light of these observations, we are constrained to hold that the detaining authority had not applied his mind while passing the grounds of detention as well as the detention order,' the Division Bench wrote. Authoring the verdict, Justice Ramesh pointed out the object of preventive detention was not to punish a man for an offence committed by him but to intercept him before he commits an offence and to prevent him from causing disturbance to public order on the basis of his antecedents. Therefore, the detaining authorities must be highly circumspect before issuing the detention orders. 'Any indifferent attitude on the part of the detaining authority... would defeat the very purpose of the preventive detention and turn the detention order as a dead letter and frustrate the entire proceedings,' the judges highlighted. Effect on bail proceedings When Additional Advocate General P. Kumaresan feared that the quashing of the preventive detention orders could become an influencing factor for the grant of bail to the accused in the murder case, the judges made it clear that both were mutually exclusive and that in no case, the quashing of a preventive detention order could be considered as a factor to grant bail in a criminal case. 'We intend to remind the bail courts that the standard or grounds for consideration of bail application is distinct from that of the grounds of consideration adopted by the High Court in interfering with the preventive detention orders. While punitive detention is made after proper application of mind, preventive detention touches upon a subjective satisfaction of a detaining authority,' the Bench said. 'In light of these discussions, we make it unambiguously clear that the bail court, in such cases, shall not give weightage to quashing of the detention order, as a ground for the grant of bail. This observation shall hold good for the present case also,' the judges concluded.
