GOVINDAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein has been detained 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, (Act 14 of 1982) in C.M.P. No. 105/B.L.A. 93 (C2) dated 29.6.1993 in the proceedings of the District Magistrate and District Collector, Salem.

(2.) The antecedent activities of the petitioner as enumerated in the grounds disclosed that the petitioner was convicted once for selling illicit distilled arrack in March, 1992 and again in June, 1992, for distillation of illicit arrack in July, 1992 and once for possession of illicit arrack in January, 1992. We do not feel it necessary to narrate in any detail the incident leading to the petitioner's arrest on 13.6.1993. It is, however, stated that he was found in possession of illicit arrack and seen in the act of selling the same to the strangers when he was apprehended and samples were taken out for chemical analysis. About the Chemical Analysers report, it is said as follows:

(3.) This Court in Dharman v. State of Tamil Nadu1 and Pepisu alias Kannu v. State of Tamil Nadu that in the case of the presence of alcoholic called atropine, its quantity found in 100 ml of arrack should be such that it should give some indication of posing or causing any grave or widespread danger to public health or life and held that presence of about 10 mg. of atropine in 100 ml of arrack is not sufficient for such interference. In the case of the petitioner, the atropineTs quantity is only 4.05 mg. The case is fully covered by the ratio of the judgments of this Court in the above said decisions. We have expressed our views why the Court should follow the ratio in the said judgments in our judgments in G. Pandu v. State of Tamil Nadu and Pampukaran alias Kamalesan v. State of Tamil Nadu4.