MUTHU Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE IX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging an order of detention passed by the first respondent on 24.11.2006, the wife of the detenu Pitchai, has brought forth this petition.

(2.) The order under challenge is perused. The affidavit in support of the petition and the counter affidavit are perused. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) As could be seen from the available materials, the sponsoring authority made a recommendation stating that there is one ground case registered by Sivakasi Town Police Station in Crime No. 1214 of 2006 under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, for an occurrence that took place on 16.11.2006 where the detenu was found in possession of 120 grams of ganja, and there are five adverse cases, the first one registered by the same Police Station in Crime No. 285/2001 under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act for an occurrence that took place on 8.4.2001 where he was found in possession of 50 grams of ganja and was found guilty, the second one registered by the same Police Station in Crime No. 101/2003 under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act for an occurrence that took place on 10.2.2003 where he was found in possession of 50 grams of ganja and was found guilty, the third one registered by the same Police Station in Crime No. 303/2003 under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act for an occurrence that took place on 1.4.2003 where he was found in possession of 500 grams of ganja, the fourth one registered by the same Police Station in Crime No. 879/2003 under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act for an occurrence that took place on 30.9.2003 where he was found in possession of 250 grams of ganja and the fifth one registered by the same Police Station in Crime No. 826/2006 under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act for an occurrence that took place on 22.8.2006 where he was found in possession of 1010 grams of ganja. Pointing out all these particulars and materials regarding the same, there was a recommendation made by the sponsoring authority to the first respondent for passing an order of detention. The first respondent after perusal and scrutiny of the materials, found that the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to the public health, and under the circumstances, he arrived at the subjective satisfaction, and the detenu should be termed as drug offender. Accordingly, the first respondent has passed the order of detention, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.