(1.) PETITIONER Chinnadurai, is the son of detenu Maruthai who has been detained as a bootlegger under Tamil Nadu Act No. 14 of 1982, in pursuance of an order of detention dated 1.9.1993 passed by the second respondent, District Magistrate and Collector, Salem with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and health.
(2.) PETITIONER had come to adverse notice in six prior crimes registered by Thalaivasal Police Station and Attur Prohibition Enforcement Wing, for offences punishable under Secs. 4(1)(a), 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, crime period ranging between March, 1992 and August, 1993. In all the prior crimes, petitioner was sentenced to pay a fine which he did. While so, Jeevanantham of Attur consumed arrack sold by the detenu at or about 9 a.m. on 23.8.1993. When the detenu charged higher rate for arrack, Jeevanantham questioned him, which evoked a reply that the arrack was something special. While consuming arrack, Jeevanantham had a sense of burning in his throat and stomach. He was unable to consume the whole quantity. On his way home, he vomitted several times. Next evening, he went over to Government Hospital. Attur and took treatment. Earlier, he had taken native treatment. Since he formed an impression that some poisonous substance must have been mixed in the arrack sold by the detenu, he complained to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Attur, at 5.30 p.m. on 24.8.1993. The said Sub-Inspector conducted a raid at or about 7.30 p.m. on 24.8.1993 and found the detenu selling arrack to an unknown individual standing before him. On seeing the police party, the buyer took to his heels. Arrack seized from the petitioner, on analysis was found to contain poisonous atropine. Detenu was arrested and judicial remand obtained. After follow-up action, the impugned order was passed.
(3.) THE first ground was, that the detenu had pleaded for supply of certain documents through his representation dated 16.9.1993 which were not furnished though the representation was rejected on 29.9.1993. THE first document requested was a copy of the intimation letter sent to the close relations of the detenu informing them of this preventive order and the place of incarceration. THE next document was a copy of the remand order. THE third document requested was a Government order (G.O.). Detenu had also requested for copies of Challans for payment of fines in six adverse cases, on the ground that he had remitted fine only in two cases. THE next document requested was the pocket notebook of the Sub-Inspector of Police, who had arrested the detenu. He had also requested for the note transferring him from Sub Jail to Central Prison, He also wanted to know the value of the arrack seized.