IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :08.07.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN and THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU Habeas Corpus Petition No. 164 of 2008 Davamani ... Petitioner Vs 1. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore. ... Respondents Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in connection with the Detention Order dated 28.01.2008 and made in C3/D.O.No.3/2008 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and set aside the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the detenue Babu, son of nArumugam, now confined in Central Prison, Cuddalore, before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sankara Subbu For Respondents : Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran Addl. Public Prosecutor. O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by S.PALANIVELU, J.) The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, by name, Babu, who has been detained by the Detention Order dated 28.01.2008 passed by the 2nd respondent herein, branding him as a "Bootlegger", under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 2. The detenu came to the adverse notice of the police in four cases apart from one ground case. The ground case has been registered in Crime No.70 of 2008 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Prohibition and Enforcement Wing, Panruti, in which it is stated that on 17.01.2008 at about 13.00 hours, while the Inspector of Police, Prohibition and Enforcement Wing, Panruti, along with his police party https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ made a search, they intercepted a TVS Motor Cycle driven by the detenu and found 110 litres of illicitly distilled arrack kept in two lorry tubes, each containing 55 litres. The accused was arrested and his voluntary confession statement was recorded. Samples were collected and sent for chemical analysis. A case was registered under Section 4 (1)(aaa) and 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, would vehemently contend that the Detention Order suffers from non application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority since he has mechanically passed the order. He pointed out paragraph No.6 of the Detention Order wherein the Detaining Authority has stated that in Crime No.70 of 2008, the detenu had already filed a bail application before the Court of Sessions, Cuddalore, on 21.01.2008 in Crl.M.P.No.433 of 2008 and it is pending. It is his further contention that the Detaining Authority has not taken into consideration that a valid remand had already been in existence for the detenu in Crime No.61 of 2008 also. 5. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as to the above said contention. In both the Crime Nos.61 of 2008 and 70 of 2008, the detenu was arrested on 17.01.2008 and was remanded to judicial custody till 30.01.2008. The requisition for remand submitted by the Inspector of Police, Prohibition and Enforcement Wing, before Judicial Magistrate No.1, Cuddalore, in Crime No.61 of 2008 is perused. The booklet contains various records pertaining to both the cases, which would amply indicate that in both the crime numbers, the detenu was remanded and all the procedures have been followed. But in the Detention Order, the Detaining Authority has failed to consider the remand order passed in Crime No.61 of 2008. This shows the non application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. 6. In the judgment reported in 2008(1) TNLJ 475 (Criminal) (Arunachalam -vs- State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Department of of Prohibition and Excise, Fort St. George, Chennai-9 and another), a similar circumstance arose and this Court, after referring to an earlier order of this Court passed in W.P.No.9877 of 1990 dated 26.11.1990, has observed that failure to consider the remand in respect of a crime number would amount to non application of mind and consequently, vitiate the order of detention. The above judgment of the Division Bench of this Court would also squarely apply to the facts of the present case. The non application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority in this regard has vitiated the Detention Order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. In view of the above, the impugned Order of Detention passed by the Detaining Authority, viz., the 2nd respondent herein, is liable to be quashed and it is, accordingly, quashed. The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is set at liberty forth with unless he is required in connection with any other case. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar bs/ To 1. The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamilnadu, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai-600 009. 2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore. 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai. 4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore. 5.The Joint Secretary, Public (Law) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. KA (CO) km/25.7. H.C.P.No.164 Of 2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/