M RANI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE AND PROHIBITION; DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging an order of detention passed by the first respondent dated 6.8.2006, whereby the petitioner's husband Muthuvel, was termed as Bootlegger, the wife has brought forth this petition.

(2.) The order under challenge is perused. It is seen from the impugned order that there were six ground cases registered against the detenu all relating to prohibition offences. On the strength of the recommendation made by the sponsoring authority, the order came to be passed. According to the detaining authority, the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health. Now, the said order is sought to be assailed by the petitioner stating that there are discrepancies found.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that as could be seen, in three of the cases, the detenu was fined, and he also paid the fine of Rs. 500/- in each case; but, the order would read that there was a fine of Rs. 750/- in one case, and thus, there was a discrepancy found. The learned Counsel would further add that in the instant case, one of the witnesses by name Muthusami, has given a statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. to the police that on 10.7.2006, he had the arrack supplied by the detenu; that the detenu was not present in the arrack shop on the very day; that at that time, he was actually present before the Criminal Court, when he was fined; that he paid the fine amount also; and that under the circumstances, the detenu could not have been in his arrack shop as stated in the statement which was relied on by the authority. The learned Counsel would further add that the detaining authority has pointed out that he was aware that the detenu was in remand in connection with Manapparai Police Station Crime No. 310/2006 and has not moved for bail; but, factually, he moved bail application on 3.8.2006, and it was dismissed; that the said fact was not brought to the notice of the authority; that under the circumstances, the authority could not apply his mind, and all would go to show that there was non-application of mind.