PALANISAMI Vs. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER herein has been detailed 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, 1982 (Act 14 of 1982).

(2.) THE Grounds of detention contained two instances of the petitioner previously having indulged in the sale of illicit liquor and punished with fine and as grounds of detention that on 15.4.1993 at 9:00 a.m., one Patchiappan informed that he had purchased from the petitioner a glass of arrack and consumed the same, which caused intoxication, followed by burning of eyes and giddiness and vomiting several times, which was controlled only after some native treatment given to him by his wife. On information from Patchiappan that the petitioner was the seller, it is said, the Police party headed for the spot, where the petitioner was found selling the arrack to one unknown person, who on seeing the police -party, dropped the glass of arrack and ran away, 'and could not be secured, a statement, which we invariably find recorded in almost every detention order under section 3 of Act 14 of 1982. The police party, however, found the petitioner, who was having in his possession four litres of arrack, and the samples of the arrack were chemically analysed and 'the samples contained ethyl alcohol, acids, easters, higher alcohol and aldehyde and it was illicitly distilled arrack and also detected and toxic principles of datura equivalent to 5.21% (w/v.) of atropine. Regarding the satisfaction the detaining authority has said,

(3.) We are conscious that a Bench of this Court in Dharman v. State of Tamil Nadu (W.P. No. 6737 of 1988, Order dated 15.2.1989) and Pepisu Alias Kanni v. State of Tamil Nadu (W.P. No. 9179 of 1990, Order dated 9.11.1990) has taken the view that for the purpose of detention of a person, who is a bootlegger, it will be necessary to, see amongst other things, that the poisonous ingredients of the liquor sold by him or her was in such a quantity that it posed a grave or widespread danger to public life. In the said two cases the Court has held that presence of 10 milligrams percentage in hundred litres of liquor will not be dangerous to life or public health. In Pambukaran Alias Kamalesan v. State of Tamil Nadu (W.P. Nos. 11773 and 11774 of 1990, Order dated 10.2.1990), a Bench of this Court has expressed that in a proper case, this Court will be required to reconsider the correctness of the above view, but for the reason of the stereo type of grounds, the narration of the incidents leading to the apprehension of the detenue by the police, the escape of the purchaser sighted at the time of arrest, etc., are such that the Court may avoid going to the issue as to whether the view expressed in the afore -mentioned Judgments requires a reconsideration and follow the same. In the instant case also, we propose to adopt the same approach.