IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 6.2.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI H.C.P.No.1700 of 2007 M.Dasarathan .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The District Magistrate and District Collector Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector of Tirvellore District, Trivellore. 2. The Secretary to Government Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St.George, Chennai-9. .. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Habeas Corpus as stated therein. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rajasekaran 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 first respondent herein clamped an order of detention as against the detenue – Violet, mother of the petitioner, as the said authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the said detenue is a Bootlegger and she 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 25.10.2007 came to be passed by the first respondent on the basis of the ground case in Crime No.472 of 2007 on the file of Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Tiruvallur for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1)(i), 4 (1)(aaa) read with 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act with reference to the occurrence said to have taken place on 24.9.2007. On 24.9.2007, when the Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Tiruvallur and his team went to farm fields to maintain vigil, they found the detenue in possession of polythene bag. On seeing the police party, the detenue tried to escape, but she was apprehended. On enquiry, she stated that due to her family situation, to earn a livelihood, she involved in trade. The detenue was arrested and the contraband was seized. A case was registered and she was remanded. The samples of arrack were sent for chemical analysis and report reveals that the sample of arrack contained 8.4%mg of Atropine, a poisonous substance which would endanger life if not treated vigorously. 2.2. Apart from the above, the detaining authority also took note of five adverse cases pending against the detenue, viz., Crime Nos.263 of 2005, 192 and 292 of 2006 and 74 of 2007 on the file of Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Tiruvallur and Crime No.515 of 2006 on the file of Tiruvallur Taluk Police Station, all for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1)(aaa) read with 4(1- A), 4(1)(aa) read with 4(1-A), 4(1)(a), 4(1)(a) read with 4(1-A) and 4(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. 2.3. The detaining authority, having satisfied that the detenue 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 son of the detenue has preferred this Habeas Corpus Petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records of the first respondent in detention order BDFGISSV No.22/2002, dated 25.10.2007, to set aside the order of detention and to direct the respondents to produce the detenue before this Court and to set her at liberty. 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 the detaining authority in the grounds of detention relied upon the confession statement alleged to have been made by the detenue that she was involved in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ present case and previous cases, the detaining authority had not furnished any supporting material to substantiate that the detenue confessed her involvement in the present and previous cases and hence, the order of detention is vitiated. 6. A perusal of the detention order discloses that the detaining authority in the grounds of detention relied upon the confession statement alleged to have been made by the detenue that she was involved in the ground case, viz., Crime No.472 of 2007 on the file of Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Tiruvallur and the adverse cases, viz.,Crime Nos.263 of 2005, 192 and 292 of 2006 and 74 of 2007 on the file of Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Tiruvallur (which are all pending trial) and Crime No.515 of 2006 on the file of Tiruvallur Taluk Police Station (which is pending investigation). But, concededly, the detaining authority had not furnished any supporting material to substantiate the above-said confession made by the detenue, and the same in our considered opinion vitiates the order of detention. For the reason aforesaid, the impugned order of detention is vitiated and as such, the same is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside. This petition is allowed. The order of detention dated 25.10.2007 is set aside. The detenue is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless her presence is required connection with in any other crime. No costs. Sasi Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To: 1. The District Magistrate and District Collector Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector of Tirvellore District, Trivellore. 2. The Secretary to Government Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St.George, Chennai-9. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The Superintendent, Special Prison for Women, Puzhal. 4. The Joint Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Public (Law and Order) Department, Fort St George, Chennai 9. 5. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. H.C.P.No.1700 of 2007 NG(CO) SR/18.2.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/