IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07.01.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI H.C.P.No.1417 of 2007 Selvi .. Petitioner Vs 1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by The Secretary to Govt., Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The District Collector & District Magistrate,Nagapattinam District, Nagapattinam. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Habeas Corpus as stated therein. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Muruganantham For Respondents: Mr.N.R.Elango Addl. Public Prosecutor O R D E R (Made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.) The petitioner, mother of the detenu by name Kumar @ Kuyil Kumar, who was incarcerated at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, by order dated 27.8.2007 of the second respondent under the provisions of 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 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a Bootlegger, seeks a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in connection with the said order of detention made in proceedings C.O.C.No.48/2007, to set aside the same and to direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.1. On 8.8.2007, while the police party attached to Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Nagapattinam, conducted prohibition raid at Arunthavampulam village, the detenu was found selling illicit arrack and on seeing the police party, the detenu and the consumers tried to fled from the spot, but the detenu was apprehended by the police and others escaped. When the arrack was smelt, it emanated poisonous odour causing irritation to eyes. The detenu was arrested and when enquired he admitted the offence. A case in Crime No.1623 of 2007 was registered for offences under Sections 4(1)(aaa), 4(1)(i), r/w 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. Samples of arrack were seized and sent for chemical analysis. The detenu was later sent to Court for judicial remand. 2.2.The Detaining Authority taking note of the above ground case as well as six adverse cases of similar nature, viz. in Thalainayar Police Station Cr.Nos.3/2007, 25/2007, 189/2007 and 260/2007 and Nagapattinam P.E.W. Cr.Nos.297/2007 and 531/2007, having satisfied that there is compelling necessity to detain the detenu in order to prevent him from indulging in such activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and order, clamped the impugned detention order on the detenu. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner, inviting our attention to the fact that even though the detaining authority observed in the grounds of detention that samples of arrack were seized in two bottles and the same were sent for chemical analysis, the chemical analysis report reflects that only one bottle of arrack was sent, contends that the said discrepancy, which went unnoticed by the detaining authority, vitiates the impugned order of detention. 4.We have perused the entire materials placed before us. We find that in para 3 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has observed that the Inspector of Police took samples of arrack of 500 ml. each in two 750 ml. capacity bottles, sealed and labelled and the said samples of arrack and other seized articles were produced before the Court on 8.8.2007 and sample arrack bottles were sent for chemical analysis on 16.8.2007. But, however, the chemical analysis report found at page 63 of the paper book discloses as though only one bottle of sample arrack containing 500 ml. was received for chemical analysis. The above discrepancy as to whether two bottles were sent or only one bottle was sent for chemical analysis, is apparent on the face of record, which reflects the non-application of mind by the detaining authority. Hence, we are convinced that the impugned order of detention vitiates on this ground. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.In the result, the order of detention is is set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar sra To 1. The Secretary to Government (Home), Prohibition & Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai 9. 2. The District Collector & District Magistrate, Nagapattinam District, Nagapattinam. 3. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order) Fort St.George, Chennai -9. 4. The Superintendent Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli. 5. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. H.C.P.No.1417 of 2007 DM(CO) RVL 22.01.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/