IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28.2.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI H.C.P.No.34 of 2008 D.Vasantha .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The State of Tamilnadu rep. by its Secretary Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 2. The District Magistrate and District Collector Villupuram District. .. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Habeas Corpus as stated therein. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vadivel Murugan 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 Devendiran, husband of the petitioner, as the said authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the said detenu is a Bootlegger and he has to be detained under 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). 2.1. The order of detention dated 17.10.2007 came to be passed by the second respondent on the basis of the ground case said to have taken place on 8.10.2007, when the Inspector of Police, Tirukoilur Prohibition Enforcement Wing along with his police party conducted prohibition raid at Melsiruvalur Village. According to the police, the detenu was found selling arrack. He was apprehended on the spot and the contraband was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ seized. Samples were sent for chemical analysis. A case was registered in Crime No.1500 of 2007 under Sections 4(1)(i), 4(1)(aaa) and 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act on the file of Tirukoilur Prohibition Enforcement Wing, and the detenu was remanded. The chemical analysis report reveals that the rectified spirit was mixed with 3.18% mg w/v of atropine. 2.2. Apart from the above, the detaining authority also took note of the four adverse cases pending against the detenu, viz., Crime Nos.988 of 2006, 112, 286 and 561 of 2007 all on the file of Tirukoilur Prohibition Enforcement Wing for the offences punishable under 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 said detention, the wife of the detenu has come forward with the present Habeas Corpus Petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 17.10.2007 in his office Ref.No.C2/46046/2007 against the detenu, now confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore, to set aside the same and to direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and to set him at liberty. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 5. The only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even though three adverse cases in Crime Nos.112, 286 and 561 of 2007 all on the file of Tirukoilur Prohibition Enforcement Wing for the offences punishable under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act are under investigation, the first respondent, in the rejection order dated 17.12.2007 has stated that the detenu has admitted his guilt in all the said three adverse cases and the ground case, while the fact remains that the detenu admitted guilt only in first adverse case, Crime No.988 of 2006 on the file of Tirukoilur Prohibition Enforcement Wing, and therefore, there is apparent non-application of mind and consequently, the detention order is liable to be set aside. 6. From a perusal of the records available it is apparent that there are four adverse cases pending in all against the detenu, viz., Crime Nos.988 of 2006, 112, 286 and 561 of 2007 all on the file of Tirukoilur Prohibition Enforcement Wing for the offences punishable under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. Even in the grounds of detention, it has been stated that the detenu admitted his guilt in the first adverse case and adverse cases 2 to 4 are under investigation. But, while disposing of the representation made by the petitioner dated 22.11.2007, the first respondent, by proceedings dated 17.12.2007 has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ observed that the detenu has admitted his guilt in adverse cases, viz.,Crime Nos.112, 286 and 561 of 2007 and also in the ground case in Crime No.1500 of 2007 all on the file of Tirukoilur Prohibition Enforcement Wing. There is apparent error on the face of the records and the same in our considered opinion only depicts the non-application of mind on the part of the respondents. The order of detention is liable to be set aside. This habeas corpus petition is allowed and the order of detention is set aside. This detenu is directed to be set at liberty, unless he is required in connection with any other case. Sd/ Asst. Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar sasi To: 1. The State of Tamilnadu rep. by its Secretary Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 2. The District Magistrate and District Collector Villupuram District. 3. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. +1 cc to Mr.S.Vadivel Murugan, Advocate, SR.No.11445. Kgk (Co) krd / 19.03.08 H.C.P.No.34 of 2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/