PALPANDI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This Writ Petition is filed by the detenu himself under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus quashing the detention order dated 27/7/1992 and set him at liberty. The detenu came to the adverse notice as bootlegger in view of the 3 cases referred to in the preamble of the grounds of detention and was detained on the basis of the ground case by the District Magistrate and Collector, Madurai, the 2nd respondent herein in exercise of the powers conferred under section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 19B2 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/82) read with orders issued by the Govt. in G.O. Ms. No. 25, Prohibition and Excise Department dated 18th January 1982 under subsection(2) of section 2 of the said Act, and subsequently amended by G.O. Ms. No. 69, Prohibition and Excise Department, dated. 18/4/1992, with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The facts which lead to the passing of the order of detention have been stated in detail in the order of detention and they were duly served to the detenu and hence we do not propose to reiterate the same Once again in this order.

(2.) Though the learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the order of detention on various grounds, he confined his arguments to the ground viz., as per the Chemical analysis report the percentage of atropine is found only 0.58 mg (W/N) and the doctor would state that if a person consumed arrack mixed with such percentage of atropine that would cause danger to the human life. But he would state further that if only large quantity is consumed that would cause danger, to human life. The opinion of the doctor is one in general whereas in the grounds of detention the opinion as referred to is quite different and such an order is vitiated on the ground of non application of mind in respect of the very vital question as to whether the detenu is a bootlegger. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this court to the statement recorded from the Dr. Mani Mohan, M.D., Cumbum Govt. Hospital, by the Inspector wherein he stated that he perused the report of the Chemical Examiner and issued a certificate stating that if anybody consumes J.D. arrack mixed with atropine of 0.58 mg WIN that would cause giddiness, vomiting, congestion of eyes and suffocation etc., and if immediate treatment is not given it would cause danger to the life. He has also stated that if anybody consumes excess quantity than the required, it would cause danger to the human life. But he has not stated what is meant by excess quantity. In the grounds of detention we have found while considering the statement of the doctor has been stated as follows:

(3.) It has to be noted in this case the percentage of atropine mixed in the I.D. arrack is also negligible one and further the findings of the doctor is also general in character and bas not view any definite opinion thereby the consumption of the I.D. arrack mixed with 0.58 mg WIN would prove to be fatal. But the finding is to the effect only if excess quantity is taken it will prove fatal and while so he has not also mentioned what is he meant by excess quantity. In these circumstances, no detention can be made by characterisiong the petitioner detenu as a bootlegger. (Vide Rajendra v. State of Tamil Nadul and Lakshmi v. State of Tamil Nadu2). Hence having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the medical testimony and the non application of mind by the detaining authority the impugned order of detention is vitiated and liable to be quashed.