A RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second respondent herein clamped an order of detention as against the detenu Haridoss, father of the petitioner, 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.) 2. 1. The order of detention dated 5. 9. 2007 came to be passed by the second respondent on the basis of the ground case in Crime No. 573 of 2007 on the file of Cheyyar Prohibition Enforcement Wing Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 4 (1) (i) read with 4 (1) (aaa) read with 4 (1-A) (ii) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, complaint of which was given by one Perumal. According to the complainant, on 9. 8. 2007, when he consumed arrack purchased from the detenu, he vomited thrice, felt giddiness and fell down, he had burning sensation in his eyes and stomach and chest pain. Knowing that some poisonous substance was added by the detenu to increase the effect of intoxication, he preferred a complaint as referred to above, based on which the Inspector of Police and police party, went to the location, found the detenu selling arrack, apprehended him and seized the contraband. The samples were sent for chemical analysis and report reveals that the sample of arrack contained 6. 9%mg of Atropine per 100 ml, and the same would endanger life. 2. 2. Apart from the above, the detaining authority also took note of five adverse cases pending against the detenu, viz. , Crime Nos. 82, 196, 212, 415 and 416 of 2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 4 (1) (aa), 4 (1) (aaa) read with 4 (1-A) (ii) and Rule 6 of RS Rules, 1959, Section 4 (1) (i), 4 (1) (aaa), 4 (1-A) (ii) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and Rule 6 of the RS Rules, 1959. 2. 3. The detaining authority, having satisfied that the detenu is indulging in activities which are prejudicial to maintenance of public order and public health, passed the impugned order.

(3.) CHALLENGING the said detention, the son of the detenu has preferred this Habeas Corpus Petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to direct the respondents to produce the detenu, now confined in Central Prison, Vellore, before this Court and to call for the records of the respondents relating to the order of detention vide proceedings D. O. No. 41/2007-C2, dated 5. 9. 2007, to set aside the same and to set the detenu at liberty.