SATHISHKUMAR Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second respondent herein clamped an order of detention as against Radha, mother of the petitioner, as the said authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the said detenue is a Bootlegger and she 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 27. 7. 2007 came to be passed by the second respondent on the basis of the ground case said to have taken place on 1. 7. 2007 at about 8. 30 a. m. , when the police party were watching out for prohibition offences at Manthoppu Vattam, Kothur on information, they found the detenue pouring some liquid into a plastic tumbler, giving it to a person who was standing and receiving something from that person. On seeing the police party, the person who was consuming from the tumbler escaped. The Sub Inspector of Police caught hold of the detenue and found that she was in possession of 105 Litres of arrack in a mud pot with some poisonous odour. The detenue was arrested. A case was registered in Crime No. 427 of 2007 on the file of Natrampalli Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 4 (1) (i) (aaa) and 4 (1-A) (ii) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. On chemical analysis, the Scientific Officer and Assistant Chemical Examiner to the Government, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Vellore in his report stated that the arrack is mixed with 6. 7 mg. of atrophine per 100 ml. arrack and the same is a poisonous substance. 2. 2. Apart from the above, the detaining authority also took note of the eight adverse cases pending against the detenue, viz. , Crime Nos. 220, 329 and 517 of 2005, 105, 568 and 714 of 2006 and 45 and 216 of 2007 all registered on the file of Natrampalli Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 4 (1) (aaa), 4 (1) (i), 4 (1-A) (ii) and 4 (1) (aa) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. 2. 3. The detaining authority, having satisfied that the detenue 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 detenue has come forward with the present Habeas Corpus Petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 27. 7. 2007 in her office Ref. No. C3. D. O. No. 60 of 2007 against the detenue, now confined at Special Prison for Women, Vellore, Vellore District, to set aside the same and to direct the respondents to produce the detenue before this Court and to set her at liberty.