IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 17/07/2006
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.DHANAPALAN
Habeas Corpus Petition No.491 of 2006
Rajeswari ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The District Magistrate and
District Collector of
Tiruvannamalai district
Tiruvannamalai.
2. The State of Tamilnadu rep.
By its Secretary to Government
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai 9. ... Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the
issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records relating to the
detention order dt.28.4.2006 passed by the first respondent herein in his
office ref.D.O.No.29/2006.C2 quash the same and direct the respondents to
produce the petitioner's husband Anandan, son of Ramalingam, Se.Andapattu
village, Chengam taluk, Tiruvannamalai district presently undergoing detention
in the Central Prison, Vellore under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention
of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders,
Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act before
this Hon'ble Court and set the detenu at liberty.
!For Petitioner : Mr.P.Mani
^For Respondents : Mr.Babu Muthu Meeran
Addl. Public Prosecutor
:ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by P.Sathasivam, J.)
The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu by name Anandan, who was
detained as a ”Bootlegger” as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of
Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders,
Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982
(Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), by the impugned detention order dated 28.4.2006,
challenges the same in this Petition.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.
3. At the foremost, learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing our
attention to the fact that at the time of arrest, though the sponsoring
authority has registered a case under Section 4(1)(i) and 4(1-A)(ii) of the
Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and only later
the same was altered as 4(1)(i), 4(1)(aaa) read with 4(1-A)(ii) of the Act.
It is not clear how the authority mentioned even the altered provision in the
Mahazar which was prepared at 13.00 hrs. on 9.4.2006. In the absence of
proper explanation, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
detention order is liable to be quashed.
4. In the light of the said contention, we verified the details
mentioned in the FIR which shows that the occurrence took place at 9.30 a.m.
on 9.4.2006 and the information was received by the police at 11 .30 a.m. on
9.4.2006. In the First Information Report, the offences mentioned are 4(1)(i)
and 4(1-A)(ii) of the Act. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, only after seizure which took place at 13 hrs. on 9.4.2006,
the sponsoring authority is able to know the quantum of illicit arrack. In
such circumstances, it is not clear how the Mahazar contained Section
4(1)(aaa) of the Act. In the absence of proper explanation, we are of the
view that the detaining authority has not applied his mind to this aspect
before passing the detention order. On this ground, the detention order is
liable to be quashed.
5. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the
impugned order of detention is quashed. The detenu is directed to be set at
liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in some other case or
cause.
ajr
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Prohibition and Excise Dept.,
Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
2. The District Magistrate and
District Collector of
Tiruvannamalai district
Tiruvannamalai.
3. The Superintendent,
Special Prison, Vellore
(In duplicate for communication to detenu)
4. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law and Order)
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.