(1.) The petitioner, who is the husband of the detenue by name Saraswathi, challenges the order of detention dated 06.05.2008 detaining his wife as "Bootlegger" as contemplated under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Forest-offenders, Goonda, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates (Amendment) Act, 2008 (Tamil Nadu Act 16 of 2008).
(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner by pointing out that the detaining authority for substantiating the order of detention, relied on three adverse cases apart from the ground case; that the ground case occurrence took place on 06.03.2008 at 6.30 hours; and that the Inspector of Police along with Police party while patrolling found the detenue in possession of illicit arrack and after observing formalities brought her as well as the material objects to the Prohibition Enforcement Wing at 7.30 hours and registered a case against the detenue in Crime No. 54 of 2008 under Section 4(1)(i) r/w 4(1-A) of TNP Act; would submit that as per the arrest card available at page No. 25 of the booklet, the detenue was arrested immediately at the spot at 6.30 hours and further, the crime number has been mentioned in the said card. According to the learned Counsel, while it is the positive case of the prosecution that FIR has been registered only at the Police station at 7.30 hours, the presence of the crime number in the arrest card which was prepared one hour prior to the registration of the case has not been explained. It only shows non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority and therefore, the order of detention has to be quashed.
(3.) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly admits that the crime number has been mentioned in the arrest card which was prepared at 6.30 hours on 03.04.2008, whereas, the FIR was registered only at 7.30 hours.