IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25.9.2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI H.C.P.No.864 of 2007 Selvakumar .. Petitioner Vs 1. The Secretary to the Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Habeas Corpus as stated therein. For Petitioner : Mr.M.L.Jegan For Respondents: Mr.P.Kumaresan Addl. Public Prosecutor O R D E R (Made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.) Aggrieved by the order of detention dated 19.4.2007 made in Ref.No.170/2007 passed by 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) to detain one Selvi @ Selvazhagi, wife of the petitioner, branding her as a Bootlegger, the petitioner, filed the above petition seeking to quash the order of detention and to direct the respondents to produce the detenue, who is now confined at Central Prison, Chennai before this Court and set her at liberty. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. On 6.4.2007, the Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Madhavaram Unit, Chennai, found the detenue, along with two others, selling illicit arrack containing atropine of 8.3 mg per 100 ml, as per the chemical analysis report. A case was registered in Crime No.33/2007 under Sections 4(1)(i), 4(1)(aaa) and 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. 3. The second respondent, taking note of the above case as a ground case and finding that there are three adverse cases, ordered her detention dubbing her as a bootlegger. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is a contradiction with regard to the time of occurrence mentioned in the grounds of detention and in the FIR and therefore, the order of detention is vitiated. 5. We have perused the entire materials placed before us. In the FIR and in the remand report, the sponsoring authority had stated that on 6.4.2007 at about 6.00 hours he proceeded on rounds. But, in the grounds of detention, in paragraph 3, it has been stated that on 6.4.2007 at about 8.00 hours, the sponsoring authority proceeded on rounds. When the sponsoring authority had clearly stated that he proceeded on rounds at 6.00 hours on 6.4.2007, the detaining authority had erred in mentioning the time of occurrence. 6. We are, therefore, satisfied that the above glaring discrepancy and the non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority vitiate the order of detention. Accordingly, the order of detention dated is set aside. The detenue is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless her presence is required in connection with any other case. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar kpl To 1. The Secretary to Government Prohibition & Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai 9. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai. 3. The Superintendent Central Prison, Chennai. 4. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. 5. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order) Fort St.George, Chennai -9. 1 cc To Mr.C.V.Kumar, Advocate, SR.59614. HCP No.864 of 2007. NG(CO) RVL 08.10.2007 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/