KANDASAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is the brother of detenue, Selvi Surya, daughter of Ponnurangam, who was incarcerated by order dated 23. 3. 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 her as a Bootlegger, has preferred this writ petition for issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 23. 3. 2007 in his Office Ref. No. BDFGISSV. No. 21/2007 against the petitioner's sister, Surya, daughter of Ponnurangam, now confined at Special Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai 66, to set aside the same and to direct the respondents to produce the above said detenue before this Court and set her at liberty.

(2.) ON 1. 3. 2007, the Inspector of Police, Chunambedu Police Station, along with police party, while conducting prohibition raid at Sirumailur Village, found a woman, the detenue herein, possessing three white colour plastic cans and pouring some liquid in a plastic tumbler and giving to the persons standing in front of her. On seeing the police people, the persons who drank it ran away. The said woman also tried to escape from that place, but she got caught by the police. It was found that the three cans contained 104 litres of country arrack. The detenue was arrested at 9. 45 hours and a case was registered in Crime No. 110 of 2007 on the file of Chunambedu Police Station under Sections 4 (1) (i), 4 (1) (aaa) and 4 (1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. Samples of country arrack were taken and were sent for chemical analysis, which disclosed that the arrack was mixed with atropine of more than 11. 41% mg, which would be injurious and also fatal, if it not treated vigorously.

(3.) THE second respondent, taking note of this case as a ground case and finding that there are three adverse cases pending against the detenue for the offences punishable under Sections 4 (1) (aaa), 4 (1) (a) and 4 (1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, and having satisfied that there is a compelling necessity to detain the detenu 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.