IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 8.1.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI H.C.P.No.1690 of 2007 Sella .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The State of Tamilnadu rep. by its Secretary to Government Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 2. The District Revenue Officer and District Magistrate and District Collector, (Full Additional Charge) Salem District, Salem. .. 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 – Subburu @ Subramani, brother 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 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 1.11.2007 came to be passed by the second respondent on the basis of the ground case in Crime No.766 of 2007 on the file of Valappady Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1)(i) and 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, complaint https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of which was given by one Ramesh. According to the complainant, on 13.10.2007, when he consumed arrack purchased from the detenu, he felt throat irritation, burning sensation in stomach, his eyes blurred and he vomited. Suspecting that the detenu would have added some poisonous substance in the arrack sold, he preferred a complaint as referred to above, based on which the Inspector of Police and police party, went on prohibition raid, found the detenu selling arrack, apprehended him and seized the contraband. The samples were sent for chemical analysis and report reveals that the sample of arrack contained 6.4%mg of Atropine per 100 ml, and the same would endanger life. 2.2. Apart from the above, the detaining authority also took note of three adverse cases pending against the detenu, viz., Crime Nos.382 of 2006, 75 and 397 of 2007 on the file of Steelplant Prohibition Enforcement Wing for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(i) 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 sister of the detenu has preferred this Habeas Corpus Petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court, now confined in Central Prison, Salem and to call for the records of the respondents relating to the order of detention vide proceedings C.M.P.No.7/B.L.A./C2/2007, dated 1.11.2007, to set aside the same and to set the detenu 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 as per the detention order the detenu was arrested on 13.10.2007, in the representation made on behalf of the detenu on 22.11.2007 it was specifically stated that he was arrested on 5.10.2007 itself, viz., eight days prior to the alleged date of occurrence of the ground case, but, while rejecting the said representation, the Government by proceedings dated 11.12.2007, even though referred to the representation dated 22.11.2007, had not considered the grievance of the detenu with regard to the above mentioned illegal detention from 5.10.2007, and therefore, the order of detention is vitiated. 6. A perusal of the detention order discloses that the detenu was arrested on 13.10.2007. However, in the representation made on behalf of the detenu on 22.11.2007 it was specifically stated that he was arrested on 5.10.2007. But, the Government, while disposing of the said representation by proceedings dated 11.12.2007 had not considered the said contradiction with regard to the date of arrest raised by the detenu. In our considered opinion, the non-consideration of the said vital aspect of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the case, viz., as to the date of the arrest, when a serious dispute is raised, vitiates the detention order. 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 1.11.2007 is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required connection with in any other crime. No costs. sasi Sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To: 1. The Secretary to Government State of Tamilnadu Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 2. The District Revenue Officer and District Magistrate and District Collector, (Full Additional Charge) Salem District, Salem. 3. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law & Order) Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem. 5. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. +1 cc to Mr.R.Subdra Devi, Advocate Sr.No.1332. KSJ(CO) DCP/30.1 H.C.P.No.1690 of 2007 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/