IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 05/07/2006
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.DHANAPALAN
Habeas Corpus Petition No.436 of 2006
S.Parimala ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by the the Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Prohibition and Excise
Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 9.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Egmore, Chennai 600 008. ... Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the
issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records of the second
respondent in connection with the Memo No.77/BDFGISV/2006 dated 31.0 3.2006
and quash the same and thereby direct the respondents to produce the
petitioner's husband viz., Pappa @ Poongavanam, aged 25 ( detenu) now confined
in Central Prison, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.
!For Petitioner : Mr.Abudhu Kumar Rajarathinam
For Respondents: Mr.M.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 Pappa @
Poongavanam, who is 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 31.03.2006, 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 appearing for the petitioner, by
drawing our attention to para 3 of the grounds of detention, has contended
that when the detaining authority has concluded that he satisfied that the
detenu is a Bootlegger habitually transporting and also found selling I.D.
Arrack mixed with the poisonous substance as against the provisions
contemplated under the Tamil Nad Prohibition Act 19 37, in the absence of any
materials for selling I.D. Arrack, the ultimate conclusion and detained him
as “Bootlegger” under Act 14 of 1982 , cannot be sustained.
4. In the light of the said contention, we have verified the relevant
materials. It is seen that on the date and time, viz., 02.03.2006 at about 11
hours, the police party chased and apprehended one Pappa Poongavanam(Detenu
herein) and he has admitted about transporting I.D. Arrack in three lorry
tubes in a moto rcycle. Further based on the available materials, the detenu
was charged under Section 4(1)(aaa) read with 4(1)(A) of the TNP Act in Crime
No.110 of 2006 of PEW Poonamallee Unit. In such circumstances, when the
materials are available only in respect of transportation, we are of the view
that the conclusion arrived at by the detaining authority that the detenu was
also “found selling I.D. Arrack” has no merit to substantiate the same. In
such circumstances, the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed on
the ground of non application of mind and accordingly, the same is quashed.
5. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the
impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at
liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in some other case or
cause.
raa
To
1. The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition
and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Commissioner office,
Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai.
(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.