B MARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the husband of the detenue Vasantha. She was detained by the second respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. She was identified as a bootlegger since she had come to the adverse notice of the authorities in ten cases registered for the offences punishable under Sections 4 (1) (i), 4 (1) (a), 4 (1-a) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE grounds of detention are as follows : on 20. 06. 2004, the Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, St. Thomas Mount, with his police party were on prohibition patrol and while patrolling in Pallikaranai police station limits, at Perumbakkam hill side near burial ground they saw the detenue having something with her. On seeing the police party she tried to escape, but was apprehended by the police. On enquiry, she revealed her name as Vasantha, W/o Mari. On search, the Police found three white coloured plastic cans with a capacity of 35 litres each with 35 litres of rectified spirit in each can totalling 105 litres of rectified spirit. The detenue was arrested at 05. 00 pm, and her statement was recorded in the presence of two witnesses. Samples of rectified spirit were taken in two bottles, the detenue was brought to the police station and a case in crime No. 244/2004 for the offences punishable under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act was registered. Thereafter, she was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Alandur on 21. 06. 2004 who remanded the detenue to judicial custody till 05. 07. 2004 and lodged in Sub Jail, Saidapet. The sample bottles were sent to the chemical analyst who gave a report opining that the samples contained atropine, a poisonous substance along with other substance. The detaining authority, after satisfying that the detenu is a bootlegger as she had come to the adverse notice of the authorities in several crimes registered under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and after satisfying himself that there is imminent possibility of her coming out on bail in the ground case, and will indulg in such further activities affecting public health and public order, passed the order of detention which is being impugned in this habeas corpus petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that though he has raised several grounds in the petition he confines himself to one point. According to him at page number 1 of the booklet furnished to him the thumb impression of the detenue was obtained in a blank paper and it is not known as to why her thumb impression was obtained in a blank paper. We have perused the booklet furnished to the detenue and produced by the counsel before us. The first page of the booklet contains the thumb impression of the detenue and a rubber seal stating that the contents of the documents were read over to the detenue and she understood the same. The petitioner gave a representation bringing to the notice of the authority that the thumb impression of the detenue was obtained in a blank paper on account of which the case of his wife has been prejudiced. The petitioner has also taken this as a ground in this habeas corpus petition as ground (g ).