IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02.01.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI H.C.P.No.1608 of 2007 Sarasu .. Petitioner Vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary to Govt., Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police, Egmore, Chennai-600 008. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Habeas Corpus as stated therein. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Somasundaram For Respondents: Mr.N.R.Elango Addl. Public Prosecutor O R D E R (Made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.) The petitioner, wife of the detenu by name Palayam, who was incarcerated at Central Prison, Chennai, by order dated 17.10.2007 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 No.396/2007, to quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty. 2.1. On 19.9.2007 at about 9.00 hours, the police party attached to PEW Flower Bazaar Unit conducted prohibition raid near Srinivasa Perumal Koil street and found the detenu selling illicit arrack and on seeing the police party, when he tried to fled from the spot, the police apprehended him and seized the plastic can from the detenu. When the arrack was smelt, it was found to have irritating smell and created giddiness and vomitting sensation. The detenu was arrested and brought to the police station along with the samples of arrack and a case in Crime No.102 of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2007 for offences under Sections 4(1)(i), 4(1)(aaa) r/w 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act was registered against the detenu. Later, the detenu was produced before Court for judicial remand. 2.2.The Detaining Authority taking note of the above ground case as well as four adverse cases of similar nature, viz. in P-6 Kodungaiyur P.S. Cr.No.638/2006 and in PEW Flower Bazaar Unit Cr.Nos.200/2006, 194/2006 and 216/2006, having satisfied 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 health and order, clamped the impugned detention order on the detenu. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner, inviting our attention to the fact that even though in the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has referred that two sample bottles of arrack were seized and one of them was instructed to be sent for chemicaly analysis, the report of the chemical analyst shows that four bottles of arrack were received, contends that the said discrepancy, which went unnoticed by the detaining authority, vitiates the impugned order of detention. 4.We have perused the entire materials placed before us. We find that in para 3 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has stated that samples of about 375 ml. was taken in two bottles from the white colour plastic five litres can and the same were sealed and labelled at the spot and that the Inspector of Police also deposited the seized properties before the Court and gave a requisition to forward one of the sample bottles for chemical analysis. But, however, the chemical analysis report found at page 61 of the booklet discloses as though four bottles of samples containing 375 ml. each were received for chemical analysis. The above discrepancy as to whether one bottle was sent or four bottles were sent for chemical analysis, is apparent on the face of record, which reflects the non-application of mind by the detaining authority. Hence, we are convinced that the impugned order of detention vitiates on this ground. 5.In the result, the order of detention is 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Secretary to Government (Home), Prohibition & Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai 9. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police, Egmore, Chennai. 3. The Superintendent Central Prison, Chennai. 4. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. 5. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law & Order), Fort Saint George, Chennai-9. +1 cc to Mr.S.Somasundaram, Advocate Sr.No.38. IV(CO) DCP/11.1 H.C.P.No.1608 of 2007 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/