IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 23.10.2007
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.D.DINAKARAN
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.REGUPATHI
Habeas Corpus Petition No.992 of 2007
Selva Rani ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Secretary to the Government
Prohibition and Excise Dept.
Secretariat
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai. ...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the
records in connection with the order of detention passed by
the second respondent dated 07.05.2007 in Memo
No.193/BDFGISSV/2007, against the petitioner's mother
Poongodi, W/o.Joseph, aged about 40 years who is confined at
Special Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai, set aside the
same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue
before Court and set her at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Parthiban
For Respondents : Mr.N.R.Elango, Additional Public Prosecutor.
O R D E R
(Delivered by R.REGUPATHI, J.)
The petitioner challenges the impugned order of
detention, dated 07.05.2007, in and by which, her mother by
name Poongodi has been detained as `Bootlegger’ as
contemplated under 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).
2. From the grounds of detention, it is seen that
on 17.04.2007 at 06.00 Hours, the detenue was found
transporting 500 numbers of 50 ml. duplicate Karnataka I.D.
Arrack Sachets carrying in a plastic gunny bag and the
Inspector of Police attached to Prohibition Enforcement
Wing, Madhavaram Unit, arrested her and seized the
contraband and registered a case against her in PEW
Madhavaram Unit Crime No.45 of 2007 under Sections 4(1)(i),
4(1)(aaa) read with 4(1-A) Transport TNP Act. The chemical
examination revealed that the arrack was found to contain
8.1% of atropine, a poisonous substance. The Detaining
Authority, taking note of six adverse cases pending against
the detenue and considering her incessant activities,
prejudicial to the maintenance of public health, clamped the
detention order on her.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
even prior to registration of the case, in the Arrest Memo,
crime Number has been assigned, which would only suggest
that by foisting a false case and relying on the adverse
cases, the detention order has been unjustly clamped on the
detenue.
4. We have carefully examined the materials available
before us with reference to the ground raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner. In the Arrest Memo, which
finds place at page No.72 of the Paper Book, Crime Number
has been assigned as No.45/2007, indicating that arrest has
been effected on 17.4.2007 at 6.30 Hours; however, F.I.R.
has been prepared only at 11.30 Hours. As rightly pointed
out by the counsel appearing for the petitioner, inasmuch as
Crime Number will come into existence at the time of
registration of the case, mentioning of the same in the
earlier document ie., Arrest Memo, would give rise to a
positive presumption that a false case has been foisted on
the detenue. When the detenue/accused was arrested at 06:30
Hours and only after taking her to the police station, the
case might have been registered under various Sections of
the Prohibition Act, it is not clear as to how the
Sponsoring Authority has mentioned the Crime Number in the
earlier document ie., Arrest Memo, while apprehending the
accused/detenue. Further, there is no explanation from the
concerned authority as to how the Crime Number came to be
noted in the Arrest Memo well prior to registration of the
case. In the absence of valid explanation in respect of the
above aspect, we are of the view that the impugned order of
detention is liable to be quashed on the ground of non-
application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority.
5. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed
and the order of detention passed by the second respondent
in the proceedings dated 07.05.2007 against the detenue is
quashed the and the detenue is directed to be set at liberty
forthwith from custody unless she is required in connection
with any other case or cause.
JI.
To
1. The Secretary to Govt.
Prohibition & Excise Department
Secretariat
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai
Egmore
Chennai 600 008.
3. The Public Prosecutor
High Court
Madras.