VIJAYA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the friend of the detenue by name Padma, who has been branded as 'Bootlegger' under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained by means of the order passed by the second respondent dated 7.2.2008. She came to the adverse notice of the police inasmuch as ten cases. THE ground case is one that allegedly took place on 23.1.2008 at 8.30 hours. In this case also she was found to have been in possession of illicit arrack and the case was registered in Crime No.52 of 2008 under Section 4(1)(i) read with 4(1-A)(ii) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner would submit that on 28.1.2008, a pre-detention representation on behalf of the detenue was sent to the detaining authority, which was not properly considered, as it is mentioned therein that on the basis of the letter of the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai dated 1.2.2008, it came to light that the detenue was convicted inasmuch as five cases and the other five cases are pending disposal. He further submitted that the copy of the letter of the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai dated 1.2.2008 was not furnished to the detenue and hence she could not make an effective representation before the authorities concerned.

(3.) IT is the last contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the pre-detention representation was not placed before the Advisory Board resulting in prejudice of the detenue's rights. We have carefully gone through the file. IT is clearly mentioned therein that only after perusal of all the materials concerned, the Advisory Board had passed the proceedings. In fact the copy of the booklet supplied to the detenue was also placed before the Advisory Board for perusal and it was accordingly perused by the Board. Hence the contention as to the placing of the pre-detention representation before the Advisory Board has no legs to stand and accordingly, the said contention is also rejected.