VASANTHA Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is the wife of detenu, Govindaraj, son of Arumugam, who was incarcerated by order dated 3. 4. 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 him 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 3. 4. 2007 in his Office Ref. No. C2/14420/2007 against the petitioner's husband, Govindaraj, son of Arumugam, now confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore, to set aside the same and to direct the respondents to produce the above said detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.

(2.) ON 18. 4. 2007, the Inspector of Police, Villupuram Taluk Police Station, along with police party, conducted prohibition raid at Theli village. At the back side of his house at Ayyanar Koil Street, the detenu was found pouring some liquid into a tumbler from a plastic can and giving it to a person standing in front of him and also receiving money from that person. On seeing the police people, the person who drank it ran away. The detenu also tried to escape from that place, but he got caught by the police. A white colour plastic can with 35 litres of arrack and another white colour plastic can with 2 litres of arrack were recovered. The detenu was arrested at 18. 45 hours and a case was registered in Crime No. 283 of 2007 under Section 4 (1-A) and 4 (1) (i) 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 3. 18mg% W/v.

(3.) THE second respondent, taking note of this case as a ground case and finding that there are three adverse cases pending against the detenu for the offences punishable under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, and having satisfied that there is a compelling necessity to detain the detenu in order to prevent him from indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health, ordered his detention dubbing him as a Bootlegger.