IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03.01.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI H.C.P.No.1617 of 2007 Chinnathambi .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The State of Tamilnadu rep. by its Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The District Collector and District Magistrate Krishnagiri District Krishnagiri. .. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Habeas Corpus as stated therein. For Petitioner : Mrs.R.Subadra Devi For Respondents : Mr.N.R.Elango Addl. Public Prosecutor O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.) The second respondent herein clamped an order of detention as against the detenu Kumaresan, brother-in-law of the petitioner, as the said authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu is a Bootlegger and he has to be detained under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Officers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.1. The order of detention dated 27.10.2007 came to be passed by the second respondent on the basis of the ground case said to have taken place on 12.10.2007, complaint of which was given by one Kuppan. According to the complainant, on 12.10.2007, when he purchased and consumed arrack sold by the detenu, he felt giddiness, irritation in his throat and tongue, blurring in vision and vomited. Suspecting that the detenu had mixed some poisonous substance in the arrack to increase intoxication, he lodged a complaint. Based on the above-said complaint, the Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri Enforcement Wing registered a case in Crime No.1494 of 2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1) (i) read with 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. The Inspector of Police along with his police party conducted prohibition raid and found the detenu selling arrack. The detenu was arrested on the spot and the contraband was seized. On chemical analysis, it was found that the arrack is mixed with 6.9 mg. of atropine per 100 ml. arrack and the same is a poisonous substance. 2.2. Apart from the above, the detaining authority also took note of the three adverse cases pending against the detenu, viz., Crime Nos.447, 1203 and 1481 of 2007 on the file of the Krishnagiri Prohibition Enforcement Wing for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1)(i) and 4(1)(aa) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. 2.3. The detaining authority, having satisfied that the detenu is indulging in activities which are prejudicial to maintenance of public order and public health, passed the impugned order. 3. Challenging the abovesaid detention, the brother-in-law of the detenu has come forward with the present Habeas Corpus Petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records leading to the detention of the detenu vide detention order dated 27.10.2007 on the file of the second respondent made in S.C.No.34 of 2007, to quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the body and person of the detenu before this Court and to set him at liberty from the Central Prison, Salem. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even though in paragraph (3) of the grounds of detention dated 27.10.2007 it is stated that the detenu was given a personal hearing, no such personal enquiry was conducted, nor the report of personal hearing was furnished to the detenu and therefore, the order of detention is vitiated. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. We have perused the materials available on record. While passing the detention order, the detaining authority observed that from the materials placed before it and from the personal hearing, it was satisfied that the detenu is a bootlegger and he was selling arrack mixed with poisonous substance in contravention of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health. Having observed that a personal hearing was given to the detenu and having relied on such personal hearing while passing the order of detention, the detaining authority ought to have furnished a copy of the report of the personal hearing to the detenu. Concededly, no such report of the personal hearing was furnished to the detenu, nor a personal hearing was given to the detenu. For the reasons aforesaid, the order of detention is vitiated and therefore, the petition must succeed and the same is ordered as prayed for. The detention order dated 27.10.2007 is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar sasi To: 1. The Secretary to Government State of Tamilnadu Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St.George, Chennai – 9. 2. The District Collector and District Magistrate Krishnagiri District Krishnagiri. 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai -9. 5. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. 1 cc To Ms.R.Subadra Devi, Advocate, SR.273. H.C.P.No.1617 of 2007 NTK(CO) RVL 11.01.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/