DHANAPACKIAM Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second respondent herein clamped an order of detention as against the detenu Selvam, husband of the petitioner, as the said authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the 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.) THE order of detention dated 22. 10. 2007 came to be passed by the second respondent on the basis of the ground case said to have taken place on 27. 9. 2007, complaint of which was given by one Raman. According to the complainant, on 27. 9. 2007, when he purchased and consumed arrack sold by the detenu, he felt irritation in his throat, burning sensation in his stomach, blurring in vision and vomited several times. Suspecting that the detenu had mixed some poisonous substance in the arrack, he lodged a complaint. Based on the above-said complaint, the Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Steelplant, Salem registered a case in Crime No. 456 of 2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 4 (1) (i) and with 4 (1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. The Inspector of Police along with his police party enquired the detenu, and the detenu admitted the offence. The detenu was arrested and the contraband was seized. On chemical analysis, it was found that the arrack is mixed with 6. 4 mg. of atropine per 100 ml. arrack and the same is a poisonous substance. 2. 1. Apart from the above, the detaining authority also took note of the three adverse cases pending against the detenu, viz. , Crime No. 317 of 2006 on the file of Steelplant Prohibition Enforcement Wing for the offence punishable under Section 4 (1) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act; and Crime Nos. 9 and 298 of 2007 on the file of Karippatty Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 4 (1) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. 2. 2. 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 abovesaid detention, the wife of the detenu has come forward with the present Habeas Corpus Petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records leading to the detention of the detenu vide detention order dated 22. 10. 2007 on the file of the second respondent made in C. M. P. No. 6/bla/c2/2007, to quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the body and person of the detenu before this Court and to set him at liberty from the Central Prison, Salem.