Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. Challenge is made to the order of the second respondent made in C.O.C.No.70/2007 dated 112. 2007 whereby the detenue who is the petitioner herein was termed as Goonda and detained under the provisions of Act 14 of 1982. 2. Affidavit filed in support of the petition is perused. The order under challenge is also perused. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State. 3. The order under challenge came to be passed by the detaining authority on the strength of the materials placed by the sponsoring authority pertaining to Crime No.1566 of 2006 under Section 120(b), 109 and ,395 r/w 397 IPC of Mayiladuthurai Police Station, the next adverse case registered under Section 379 IPC in Crime No.474 of 2006 at Kuttalam Police Station and apart from these two adverse cases, one ground case registered in Crime No.662 of 2007 under Section 399 IPC read with 25(1) (b) of Arms Act 1959 and other materials also, the detaining authority has recorded that it has arrived at a subjective satisfaction on the materials available to record a finding that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and peace and hence he was to be termed as Goonda and in order to prevent him from indulging in such activities, a necessity arose to pass an order of detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 4. Advancing his arguments on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner raised two points; firstly, the ground case was registered by the S.I. of Police of the concerned Station on his own complaint, while he has also taken up the investigation and made an observation of the scene of occurrence. He has also caused arrest of the accused/detenu, prepared and seized M.Os., that he has also filed two remand reports one on 211. 2007 and 12. 2007 before the Judicial Magistrate concerned. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that the complainant should not be an Investigator and hence the whole proceedings was illegal. Added further the counsel that as per the seizure mahazar, a pipe was recovered from the accused/detenu, at the time when he was preparing for dacoity. 2007 and 12. 2007 before the Judicial Magistrate concerned. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that the complainant should not be an Investigator and hence the whole proceedings was illegal. Added further the counsel that as per the seizure mahazar, a pipe was recovered from the accused/detenu, at the time when he was preparing for dacoity. But the measurement of the pipe was not mentioned in the seizure mahazar. While the defects were available when the materials placed before the detaining authority, he should not have passed the order of detention. But he has not done so, which would indicate the non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. Hence, the order of detention has got to be set aside. 5. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions. 6. The Court paid its anxious consideration to the submissions made. After doing so, this Court is of the considered opinion that this petition does not carry merit whatsoever. Concededly on the strength of the recommendations made by the Sponsoring Authority, the detaining Authority has passed an order under challenge observing that the activities of the detenu/petitioner were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and peace and hence it has arrived at a subjective satisfaction in order to terming him as a Goonda and further necessity arose to detain him as Goonda under the provisions of Act 14 of 1982. Both the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and recorded above can be raised before the Court of Criminal law in the respective criminal proceedings and that the said Court has to go into the question whether those contentions were acceptable or not. What are all required in a case like this, where the order of detention has already been passed is whether the authority has applied its mind on the materials available in order to arrive at a subjective satisfaction, which in the opinion of this Court has not been done. Under such circumstances, the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not carry any merit. Accordingly, both the grounds are rejected and hence the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.