KASTHURI THILAGAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu, Arunagiri, son of Dhandapani, who was incarcerated by order dated 3. 4. 2007 of the second respondent under Section 3 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as Bootlegger, has preferred this writ petition for issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the second respondent in proceedings C2/14421/2007, dated 3. 4. 2007, to set aside the same and to direct the respondent to produce the detenu now confined in Central Prison, Cuddalore before this Court and to set him at liberty.

(2.) THE order of detention dated 3. 4. 2007 came to be passed based on the ground case said to have taken place on 18. 3. 2007 at about 10. 00 a. m. , when the Sub Inspector of Police, Valavanur Police Station along with his party conducted prohibition raid at Salayampalayam Village, they found the detenu selling arrack, they surrounded him and found one white colour plastic can containing 3 Litres of arrack, two plastic tumblers and arrack sold amount of Rs. 35/- in the scene of occurrence. Based on the confession of the detenu, another white colour plastic can filled with 35 litres of poisonous arrack was seized. The accused was brought to Valavanur Police Station and a case was registered in Crime No. 225 of 2007 for the offences punishable under Section 4 (1-A), 4 (1) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 and the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Villupuram, ordered to remand the accused for judicial custody. The sample bottles were sent for chemical analysis, and the Scientific Assistant Grade-2 (S. G.), Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Villupuram informed that the samples contained Ethyl Alcohol, Acids, Easters, Higher Alcohols, Aldehydes and Atropine of 3. 18 mg% W/v, which is a poisonous substance. 1]. The second respondent, taking note of the above case as a ground case and finding that there are three adverse cases pending against the detenu for various offences punishable under Sections 4 (1) (aaa) and 4 (1) (aa) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act having satisfied that there is a compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and public order, ordered his detention dubbing him as a Bootlegger.

(3.) SINCE Mr. V. V. Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the impugned order of detention dated 3. 4. 2007 mainly on the ground of delay in considering the representation dated 11. 4. 2007 made on behalf of the detenu, we do not propose to go into the other aspects of the case.