LAWS(MAD)-2007-8-79

N RAVI SHANKAR Vs. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT

Decided On August 29, 2007
N.RAVI SHANKAR Appellant
V/S
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR VELLORE DISTRICT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is a friend of the detenu Arumugam, son of Murugesan, who was incarcerated by order dated 24. 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 24. 4. 2007 in Ref. No. C3. D. O. No. 30/2007 against the petitioner's friend, Arumugam, son of Murugesan, now confined at Central Prison, Vellore, 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 23. 3. 2007 at 8. 00 hours, the Sub Inspector of Police, Banavaram Police Station, along with police party, while conducting prohibition raid, found one Arumugam, the detenu herein, was selling arrack. On seeing the police people, the detenu tried to escape from that place, but he got caught by the police. A five litre white colour can containing 4= litres of country arrack and three lorry tubes each containing 35 litres of odour country arrack were recovered from the detenu. The detenu was arrested and a case was registered in Crime No. 72 of 2007 on the file of Banavaram Police Station under Sections 4 (1) (i), 4 (1) (aaa) and 4 (1 ( (A)ii of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act.

(3.) THE second respondent, taking note of this case as a ground case and finding that there are five adverse cases pending against the detenu for the offences punishable under Sections 4 (1) (aaa), 4 (1) (i) and 4 (1-A)ii of 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.