LAWS(MAD)-2008-1-507

SUMATHI Vs. STATE

Decided On January 08, 2008
SUMATHI Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of detention dated 22.10.2007, clamped on the detenu by name Jayaraj by the second respondent in C.O.C. No. 61/2007, branding him as a Bootlegger under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), is being challenged in this writ petition by the brother of the detenu.

(2.) The order of detention dated 22.10.2007 came to be passed based on the ground case said to have taken place on 11.10.2007 while the police party attached to Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Nagapattinam conducted prohibition raid at Perungadambanu of Kilvelue Police Station limits. During the raid, the detenu was found selling illicit arrack to his customers and on seeing the police party, when the detenu and others attempted to flee from the scene, the police party apprehended the detenu, but other persons escaped. When smelt, the arrack emanated poisonous odour resulting in irritation to eyes. The detenu was arrested and he gave voluntary confession statement admitting his guilt. The detenu and the seized articles were brought to the police station and a case was registered in Nagapattinam Prohibition Enforcement Wing Crime No. 1941 of 2007 for offences under Sections 4(1)(aaa), 4(1)(i) r/w 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. The detenu was later produced before the Court for remanding him to judicial custody. The sample of arrack seized was found to contain 4.1% mg.w/v of atropine, which is a poisonous substance.

(3.) The detaining authority, taking note of the above ground case as well as six adverse cases of similar nature, viz. in Nagapattinam P.E.W Cr. Nos. 1126/2006 and 564/2007 and in Kilvelur P.S.Cr. Nos. 130/2007, 95/2007 and 125/2007, and having come to the subjective satisfaction that there is a compelling necessity to detain the detenu in order to prevent him from indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health, ordered his detention dubbing him as a Bootlegger.