ANBU Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, husband of the detenue by name Govindammal, who was incarcerated at the Central Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai, pursuant to an order dated 13. 7. 2007 of the second respondent under the provisions 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 her as a Bootlegger, has preferred this writ petition for issue of Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 13. 7. 2007 in BDFGISSV. No. 45/2007, to set aside the same and to direct the respondents to produce the detenue before this Court and set her at liberty.

(2.) THE ground case, based on which the detention order was passed, is that on 13. 6. 2007, while the Inspector of Police attached to Chunambedu Police Station along with his police party at Puthirankottai village was conducting prohibition raid, the detenue was found in possession of plastic cans containing arrack and selling the same to the persons standing in front of her and when the police apprehended her, she tried to escape, but she was caught. On enquiry, the detenue admitted the offence and when the police smelt the arrack seized from the detenue, it caused irritation in the nose and eyes and also caused giddiness. The detenue was arrested and three white coloured plastic cans, containing about 102 litres of country arrack and other properties were seized. Samples in three bottles were sent for chemical analysis. A case was registered in Crime No. 315 of 2007 on the file of Chunambedu Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 4 (1) (i), 4 (1) (aaa), 4 (1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and the detenue was sent to Court for judicial remand. The chemical analysis report revealed that samples of illicit arrack taken in three bottles contained 9. 3% mg. , 8. 8% and 8. 8% w/v of atropine respectively.

(3.) THE second respondent, taking into consideration the above ground case and finding that the detenue came to the adverse notice of the authorities in eleven cases of similar nature, viz. in Crime Nos. 88/2006, 324/2006, 506/2006, 27/2007 and 109 of 2007 on the file of same police station and in Crime Nos. 193/2006, 421/2006, 942/2006, 77/2007, 285/2007 and 490/2007 on the file of Madurantakam Prohibition Enforcement Wing, having satisfied that there is a compelling necessity to detain the detenue in order to prevent her from indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health, ordered her detention dubbing her as a Bootlegger.