K CHELLIAH ALIAS SULLI Vs. COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) : This petition is filed by the detenu under Art.226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for quashing the order of detention passed against him and for setting him at liberty. The impugned order was passed by the second respondent on 5th May, 1987 in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-S.(1) of S.3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bottleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) hereinafter referred to as the Act, with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

(2.) THE petitioner herein came to the adverse notice of the second respondent as bootlegger in view of the three instant cases referred to in the grounds of detention wherein the petitioner is said to have sold I.D. arrack to one Nesamony on 17.3.1987 and after consuming the same, the said Nesamony developed burning sensation in his eyes and got irritation and lost his consciousness. On the next day, when he became allright, after getting native treatment, he reported the matter to the Inspector of Police, PEW Unit, Kuzhithurai. THEreafter the Inspector conducted a Prohibition raid and the petitioner was found selling arrack to an unknown buyer and the petitioner was found in possession of four litres of I.D. arrack. THEreafter, the Inspector seized the sample of I.D. arrack under the cover of a mahazar, registered a case, sent the sample for chemical-analysis and report and after receiving the report of the Chemical examiner that the sample contained Chloral hydrate, that is, I.D. arrack, and that chloral hydrate is a poisonous intoxicating substance, the Inspector placed the materials before the detaining authority the second respondent, who, after perusing them arrived at the subjective satisfaction and passed the impugned order.

(3.) IN the result, the writ petition is allowed, the order of detention passed by the first respondent is set aside and the petitioner is directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.