CHINNAPILLAI Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Habeas Corpus as stated therein.) The second respondent herein clamped an order of detention as against Palanisamy alias Kariyan Palanisamy, as the said authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the said detenu is a Bootlegger and he has to be detained under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Officers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).

(2.) THE order of detention dated 24.4.2007 came to be passed by the second respondent on the basis of the ground case said to have taken place on 9.4.2007 at about 10.00 Hours, when the police party, which was on raid, found the detenu selling ID arrack and arrested him and also seized the contraband. A case was registered in Crime No.412 of 2007 on the file of the Kitchipalayam Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1)(i), 4(1)(aa) and 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. On chemical analysis, the Doctor opined that the arrack is mixed with 5.2 mg. of atrophine per 100 ml. arrack and the same is harmful and injurious to human body. THE order of detention is also supported with three adverse cases against the detenu for the offences of alike nature.

(3.) THE only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is considerable delay in considering the representation and the same has rendered the detention illegal.