VENMATHI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the wife of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Bootlegger" as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the 2nd respondent passed in C3/D.O. No. 27/2013, dated 12.05.2013. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases: S. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. Virinchipuram Police Station Crime No. 59/2013 Section 4(1)(k) TNP Act, 1937 2. Virinchipuram Police Station Crime No. 91/2013 Section 4(1)(k) TNP Act, 1937 3. Virinchipuram Police Station Crime No. 171/2013 Section 4(1)(k), 4(1-A) ii TNP Act, 1937

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the impugned detention order was passed by the detaining authority without application of mind, inasmuch as, in respect of the similar case relied on by the detaining authority, there was no previous case against the accused therein, whereas, in the instant case, there are three adverse cases against the detenu, which has not been looked into by the detaining authority while passing the detention order.

(3.) We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor also on the above submission.