ARUVANCHAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges the order of the second respondent, dated 19.01.2008 made in No.C2/2395/2008, whereby an order of detention was passed under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, terming the detenu Ayyasamy, as Bootlegger.

(2.) THE affidavit filed in support of the petition and the order under challenge are perused. THE Court heard the learned counsel on either side.

(3.) THE learned counsel would further submit that as could be seen in page 97 of the booklet, the report of the chemical Analysis was made available, where three bottles of samples were placed for analysis; that the Authority has also pointed out that each contained 2.89% only, but nowhere the report would state that it contained poisonous substance Atropine; and that so long as it was not stated, the certificate itself was incomplete and it could not be inferred. Further, as could be seen from the order under challenge, in paragraph 5, the detenu was transferred from Sub Jail, Kallakurichi to Central Prison, Cuddalore; that if to be so, there should have been proceedings of such transfer of detenu, but the detaining authority has not called for the said proceedings. Further, the detenu has called for translated version of pages 5,15,16,28,29,30,63 and 94 of the booklet, enabling him to understand the contents of those documents, but it was not given to him till date. Further, the learned counsel would refer page 95 of the booklet and it was a requisition given by the police officer. At the outset, it was mentioned that it was only one bottle with sample, but at the bottom, it was mentioned that there were three bottles with samples. Apart from that, the report of the analysis as found in page 97 of the booklet would refer three bottles. Under these circumstances, this would clearly indicate the discrepancies whether it was one bottle or three bottles, but the Detaining Authority has not called for any explanation or clarification and thus, this would indicate the non application of mind and therefore, the detention order has got to be quashed.