NAGARANI Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is daughter of detenu, Sulochana @ Aruppu Sulochana, wife of Vasudevan, who was incarcerated by order dated 31. 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 31. 3. 2007 in his Memo No. 134/bdfgissv/2007 against the petitioner's mother, Sulochana @ Aruppu Sulochana, wife of Vasudevan, now confined at Special Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai, to set aside the same and to direct the respondents to produce the above said detenu before this Court and set her at liberty.

(2.) ON 16. 3. 2007, the Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Madhavaram Unit, along with police party, while conducting prohibition raid at Mathur, found a woman, the detenue herein, possessing a plastic gunny bag and by receiving money giving something from the gunny bag to the persons standing in front of her. On seeing the police people, the said woman tried to escape from that place, but she got caught by the police. It was found that the gunny bag contained 488 numbers of 50 ml duplicate Karanataka arrack sachets. The detenue was arrested at 14. 15 hours and a case was registered in Crime No. 26 of 2007 on the file of PEW Madhavaram Unit under Sections 4 (1) (i), 4 (1) (aaa) r/w 4 (1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. Samples of arrack were taken and were sent for chemical analysis, which disclosed that the arrack was mixed with atropine of more than 8. 3% 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) (A) (aaa), 4 (1) (i) 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.