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.1695 of 2007
Shanthi .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamilnadu
rep. by its Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
2. The District Collector
and District Magistrate
Pudukottai District
Pudukottai. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Habeas Corpus as stated therein.
For Petitioner : Mr.O.S.Thilak Pasumbadiyar
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 Rajendran, husband 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 17.11.2007 came to be passed by the second respondent on the basis of the ground case in Crime No.255 of 2007 on the file of Karambakudi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1)(i), 4(1)(aaa) read with 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, complaint of which was given by one Jayaraman. According to the complainant, on 9.10.2007, when he consumed arrack purchased from the detenu, he felt throat irritation, stomach ache and congestion of eyelids and vomited. Suspecting that the detenu would have added some poisonous substance to increase the effect of intoxication, 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 3.8%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 eight adverse cases pending against the detenu, viz., Crime Nos.89 and 366 of 2005, 325 of 2006, 99, 153 and 169 of 2007 on the file of Karambakudi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1)(aa) and 4(1)(aaa) Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act; and Crime Nos.148 and 235 of 2007 on the file of Prohibition Enforcement Wing Alangudi for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1)(aaa) read with 4(1-A) of the 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 wife 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, Trichirapalli and to call for the records of the respondents relating to the order of detention vide proceedings P.D.O.No.11/2007, dated 17.11.2007, 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 10.10.2007, in the representation made on behalf of the detenu on 26.11.2007 he had clearly stated that he was arrested on 7.10.2007 itself, but the said point was not at all considered by the Government while disposing the said representation by order dated 11.12.2007, and therefore, the order of detention is vitiated.
6. A perusal of the detention order discloses that the detenu was arrested on 10.10.2007. However, in the representation made on behalf of the detentu dated 26.11.2007 he had clearly stated that he was arrested on 7.10.2007. 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 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 17.11.2007 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.
(P.D.D.J.)(R.R.J.)
8.1.2008
Internet : Yes/No
sasi
To:
1. The Secretary to Government
State of Tamilnadu
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
2. The District Collector
and District Magistrate
Pudukottai District
Pudukottai.
3. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
P.D.DINAKARAN,J.
AND
R.REGUPATHI,J.
[sasi]
H.C.P.No.1695 of 2007
8.1.2008