SEETHA Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in all these cases were treated as Bootleggers as defined under section 2 (b) of Tamilnadu Prevention of DangerOus Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders,. Forest Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Act 14/ 82), (here in after referred to a the Act) and they were all detained under Section 3(1) of the Act for a period of one year from the date of detention.

(2.) The petitioners have challenged the order of detention on various grounds, inter alia that the detaining authority has not considered the fact that the sponsoring authority has taken sample of arrack in only one bottle or in two bottles and sent one or both the bottles as the case may be the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis and report. It is not disputed that the sponsoring authority has received the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory and submitted the same to the detaining authority for his subjective satisfaction. In all these cases, the detaining authority has received the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory and on his subjective satisfaction, he passed the order of detention. The petitioners in all these cases, have challenged the legality of taking of the sample in one bottle in some cases and in some other cases in two bottles but sending both for analysis and the receipt of the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory. According to the petitioners, the sponsoring authority should take sample in two bottles and send the same to the Magistrates Court and who in turn shall send one such sample to the analyst for his report and the other sample retained in the Magistrates court should be made available for test by the Laboratory if and when the other sample sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory is challenged later on by the detenu. In all these cases, the sample taken in one bottle or in two bottles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and no sample was left in the Magistrates court for test if the sample already sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory is challenged later on. We have taken a decision in a large number of cases that the sponsoring authority has to take sample at least in two bottles and send one such bottle to the Forensic Science Laboratory for test and the other bottle has to be kept in the court so that the detenu if he would require to challenge the sample bottle sent to the chemical analyst and his report, the other sample bottle kept in the court could be taken for test by the laboratory subsequently. If that procedure is not followed, we have held in a large number of cases that the procedure followed by the sponsoring authority and accepted by the dining authority is not correct and legal and therefore, we have quashed the order of detention in those cases and directed release of those detenues from detention. We have also held in those cases that the detention order is illegal.

(3.) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor who did not demur to our earlier view, now submits that the view taken by us as stated above is not a correct view. He wanted the matter to be argued at length and so we gave opportunity to both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners on one side and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other side and we heard the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel on either side in all these cases. Before passing an order of detention under Sec. 3(1) (or) 3(2) of the Act, the person concerned should be a bootlegger within the definition of Sec. 2(a) (i) and also Section 2(b) of the Act. Section 2(a) (i) of the Act reads as follows: 2. Definitions: In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires: