KALA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus has been filed by the wife of the detenu by name Lakshmanan. The Commissioner of Police, the first respondent herein, passed an order of detention against the detenu under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Act 14 of 1982), hereinafter referred to as the Act, on 15-4-1983. The grounds were furnished to the detenu within the prescribed time. The detention order was approved by the Government on 27-4-1983. Subsequently, the Government confirmed the order of detention. Thereafter the matter was referred to the Advisory Board and the Board also found justification for the passing of the order of detention. It is long thereafter the petitioner has come forward with this petition to seek the release of her husband.

(2.) The ground on which the order of detention was passed against the detenu is to the following effect : One Kannappa sent a petition on 13-12-1982 to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Prohibition, Egmore, Madras 8, stating that on 10-12-1982, he had purchased arrack from the detenu and consumed it and soon he became sick to a degree of alarm. Since he was accustomed to drinking arrack, he realised that the arrack purchased by him from the detenu should have contained some deleterious substance and it was on account of that he had experienced symptoms of sickness. He therefore felt it his duty to bring this fact to the notice of the authorities. The petition sent by Kannappa was sent to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Thiru Narayanaswami of North Raiding party for further action. The said Sub-Inspector conducted a raid at about 3 p.m. on 16-12-1982. He caught the detenu redhanded selling illicitly distilled arrack. The detenu was arrested and the arrack was seized. The sample of the arrack was sent for chemical analysis and the analysis revealed that the arrack contained ethyl alcohol, acids, esters, high alcohols and aldehydes. The Chemical Examiner gave his report that the arrack contained chloral hydrate 992 mg%. The Police Surgeon and the Professor of Forensic Medicines, Madras, was asked to give his opinion and he stated that chloral hydrate is a poisonous substance and it is injurious to health. A case was registered against the detenu and was being investigated. It is with reference to that instance the first respondent passed the order of detention, under the Act, stating that the detenu is a bootlegger, who was engaged in selling illicit liquor containing poisonous substance and the sale of such arrack is likely to cause widespread danger to life and public health and therefore he was satisfied that the detenu should not be allowed to remain at large, as otherwise, there was grave danger to the maintenance of public order. He also opined that prosecution under normal criminal law would not be effective and therefore the order of detention was imminently called for.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner assails the order of detention on the following grounds :