LAWS(MAD)-2002-4-198

GOBI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KANCHIPURAM DISTRICT, KANCHIPURAM

Decided On April 10, 2002
GOBI Appellant
V/S
State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By The Secretary To Government Prohibition And Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai And District Collector And District Magistrate, Kanchipuram District, Kanchipuram Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, husband of the detenue by name Tmt. Simla, has challenged the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 24.9.2001 in BDFGIS No.124/2001 as bootlegger under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and seek for a consequential direction to set the said detenue at liberty.

(2.) During a prohibition raid conducted by the Inspector of Police, Shankar Nagar Police Station along with his party in Anagaputhur at Ayothimman Koil Street on the evening of 17.8.2001, the detenue was found in possession of three black coloured plastic cans each containing 35 litres of arrack, and a case was registered in Crime No.589/2001 under Sec. 4(1)(aaa) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and under Sec. 328 of IPC. The detenue was arrested and produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram on 17.8.2001 and was remanded to judicial custody. Since the detenue involved herself in similar offences earlier and acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and public order, the detention order was passed on 24.9.2001.

(3.) Mr. S. Swamidoss Manokaran, learned counsel for the petitioner would challenge the order of detention on the following grounds, viz., (1) even prior to the order of detention, a pre -detention representation was made by the detenue on 22.9.2001 and the same was not considered by the detaining authority and the said representation was also not forwarded to the Government. Hence, the order of detention is vitiated for non -consideration of the pre -detention representation. (2) Secondly, there was a delay in the disposal of the representation made by the detenue on 18.10.2001 as the same was rejected only on 16.11.2001 by the detaining authority. (3) Thirdly, even though the remand order dated 17.8.2001 was in English, the same was not furnished to the detenue in Tamil, the language known to her.