IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07.01.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI H.C.P.No.1500 of 2007 Karthick .. Petitioner Vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Govt., Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Salem City. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Habeas Corpus as stated therein. For Petitioner : M/s.R.Subadra Devi For Respondents: Mr.N.R.Elango Addl. Public Prosecutor O R D E R (Made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.) The petitioner, cousin brother of the detenu by name Venkatesan @ Venkatesh, who was incarcerated at Central Prison, Salem, by order dated 3.8.2007 of the second respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a Bootlegger, seeks a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in connection with the said order of detention made in proceedings C.M.P.No./21/B.L./Salem City/2007, to quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce him before this Court and set at liberty. 2.1.On 14.7.2007 at 10.00 hours, the police party attached to Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Salem City, were on a hunt of prohibition cases within the limits of Kitchipalayam Police Station and while so, they found the detenu selling illicit arrack to his customers at Gandhi Mahan Street, Kitchipalayam and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ apprehended him at the spot. When enquired, the detenu admitted the offence. The detenu and the samples of arrack seized at the spot, were brought to the police station and a case in Crime No.326 of 2007 for offences under Sections 4(1) (i), 4(1)(aaa) and 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act was registered against the detenu. Later, the detenu was sent to Court for remanding him to judicial custody. 2.2.The Detaining Authority taking note of the above ground case as well as three adverse cases of similar nature, viz. in Kitchipalayam P.S.Cr.Nos.1195/2005 and 1639/2006 and in Salem City P.E.W. Cr.No.239/2007, and having arrived at the subjective satisfaction that there is compelling necessity to detain the detenu in order to prevent him from indulging in such activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health, clamped the impugned detention order on the detenu. 3.The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is the discrepancy as to the time of arrest of the detenu, as in the arrest memo, it is stated that the detenu was arrested in connection with the ground case on 14.7.2007 at 11.00 hours, but whereas in the Personal Search Register, it is stated that the detenu was arrested on 14.7.2007 at 10.00 a.m. and the said discrepancy, which went unnoticed by the detaining authority, vitiates the order of detention. 4.We have perused the materials available on record. The detaining authority in para 3 of the grounds of detention, observed that the Sub-Inspector of Police arrested Tr.Venkatesan, (detenu) at 11.00 hours on 14.7.2007 and informed him the reasons for the arrest and also informed his younger brother M.S.Dharman about the reasons for the arrest of his brother and recorded their acknowledgements in the arrest memo. Likewise, in the arrest memo also, found at page 22 of the paper book, it is stated that the detenu was arrested on 14.7.2007 at 11.00 a.m. in connection with the ground case. But, whereas, in the Personal Search Register prepared by the sponsoring authority while conducting body search on the detenu, which is found at page 28 of the paper book, it is mentioned that the detenu was arrested by the Sub-Inspector of Police on 14.7.2007 at 10.00 a.m. itself. This discrepancy as to the time of arrest, apparent on the face of record, in our considered opinion, has the effect of vitiating the order of detention and hence, on this ground, the petition must succeed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ In the result, the order of detention is set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. sra Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. To 1. The Secretary to Government (Home), Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai 9. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Salem City. 3. The Superintendent Central Prison, Salem. 4. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. 5. The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law and Order) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 1 cc to Ms.R.Subadra Devi, Advocate, SR.993 pvr (co) dv21.1. H.C.P.No.1500 of 2007 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/