IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.01.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI H.C.P.No.1674 of 2007 Pichaiyammal .. Petitioner Vs. 1. 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, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai. .. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records, related to petitioner's husband's detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order dated 13.11.2007 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings D.O.No.49/2007-C2; quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's husband namely Durai before this High Court and set the petitioner's husband at liberty from detention. For Petitioner : Mr.C.C.Chellappan 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 Durai, husband of the petitioner, as the said https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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). 2.1. The order of detention dated 13.11.2007 came to be passed by the second respondent on the basis of the ground case said to have taken place on 28.9.2007, complaint of which was given by one Vijayan. According to the complainant, on 28.9.2007, when he purchased and consumed arrack sold by the detenu, he felt burning sensation in his eyes, throat, stomach, vomited and fell down. Suspecting that the detenu had mixed some poisonous substance in the arrack, he lodged a complaint. Based on the above-said complaint, the Inspector of Police, Cheyyar Police Station registered a case in Crime No.457 of 2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1) (i) read with 4(1-A)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. The Inspector of Police along with his police party conducted a prohibition raid, found the detenu selling arrack. The detenu was arrested and the contraband was seized. On chemical analysis, it was found that the samples of arrack were mixed with 6.1 mg. and 6.4 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 eight adverse cases pending against the detenu, viz., Crime Nos.58 and 393 of 2007, 965, 1120 and 1157 of 2006 on the file of Cheyyar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1)(i) and 4(1)(aaa) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act; and Crime Nos.405, 416 and 614 of 2007 on the file of Cheyyar Prohibition Enforcement Wing for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1)(aa) and 4(1)(aaa) 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 wife 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 13.11.2007 on the file of the second respondent made in D.O.No.49/2007-C2, 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, Vellore. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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 the last relied upon documents by the detaining authority, viz., (i) chemical analysis report is dated 9.10.2007; and (ii) the statement of the Assistant Doctor stating that the signs and symptoms experienced by the complainant are usually seen in cases like poisoning with atropine which is a poisonous substance is dated 10.10.2007, whereas the detention order was passed only on 13.11.2007 and this delay in passing the detention order vitiates the order of detention. 6. We have perused the materials available on record. The last relied on documents by the detaining authority are (i) Analysis Report issued by the Scientific Assistant, Forensic Sciences Department, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Vellore dated 9.10.2007; and (ii) Statement of the Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Cheyyar, stating that the signs and symptoms experienced by the complainant are usually seen in cases like poisoning with atropine which is a poisonous substance, dated 10.10.2007. But, the detention order was passed only on 13.11.2007, viz., after a period of one month. There is no proper explanation for the delay in passing the detention order. The order of detention is therefore vitiated. For the reason aforesaid, the petition must succeed and the same is ordered as prayed for. The detention order dated 13.11.2007 is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. sasi Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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 TIRUVANNAMALAI 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON VELLORE. 4. THE JOINT SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PUBLIC (LAW AND ORDER) DEPARTMENT FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI-9 5. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE MYLAPORE, CHENNAI-4 6. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHEYYAR POLICE STATION CHEYYAR (CR.NO.457/2007) 7. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HGH COURT, MADRAS. DM (CO) dv/25.1. H.C.P.No.1674 of 2007 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/