RAJA ALIAS RAMAMOORTHY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER herein challenges his own detention. The detention order was passed on 31.1.1997 by the District Magistrate and Collector, North Arcot Ambedkar District, Vellore, The petitioner is detained as he was considered to be a bootlegger within the meaning of Sec.2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Of-fenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) (in short the Act"-) and under Sec.3 thereof. There are, in all, four adverse cases shown against him. There is also one ground case, It would be better to state those adverse cases, the first of which is in Crime No.470 of 1995 under Sec.4(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 and the date of offence is 20.6.1996. The second ground case is Crime No.555 of 1995 and the date of offence is 16.7.1995. The third ground case is Crime No.804 of 1995 and the date of offence is 21.10.1995, while the fourth ground case is Crime No.40 of 1996, the date of offence being 15.1.1996. Barring the first case all the three other cases are for selling liquor punishable under Sec.4(1)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937. In each of the first three cases, it seems that the petitioner had been fined Rs.200 while in the last case, he was fined Rs.250. In none of the cases, the offence is under Sec.4(1)(A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, meaning thereby there is no allegation that on an earlier occasion, the petitioner was found to be in possession and selling liquor, mixed with injurious substance or poison. The ground case suggested that on 23.1.1997, the detenu/petitioner sold tumbler full of arrack to one Ashokkumar, son of Raman at 10.00 a.m. for Rs.5. After consumption, of arrack, the said Ashokkumar felt irritation in eyes, stomach and dryness of tongue and after some difficulty he could reach his house, where he was given first aid. He had a doubt that the petitioner/detenu would have mixed some poisonous substance in the arrack which he consumed, to give more intoxication and to make it more potent. He, therefore, reported the matter to the Inspector of Police, Gudiyattam Taluk at about 12 noon on 23.1.1997 and gave a statement also, he was referred to the hospital. The Inspector of Police, Gudiyattam taluk accompanied by two other witnesses had reached the spot at 2.00 p.m. on 23,1.1997 and arrested the petitioner/detenu, who was having a white colour plastic can of five litre capacity, in which he had four litres or arrack. On making chemical analysis, it was found that it contained atropine. The petitioner/detenu also gave a voluntary confession statement in which he has stated that he had been selling arrack for the past one year, that due to the strict enforcement of prohibition laws, he had decided to make quick money by selling arrack with more intoxication and therefore, he purchased one intoxicating medicine from an unknown person of Andhra Pradesh State, mixed it with the arrack and sold such mixture even from 23.1.1997 evening till he was arrested. It is on the basis of these ground cases, the said impugned order of detention came to be passed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the impugned order of detention was totally unsustainable in law, in as much as the Detaining Authority had considered the nonexistent material and that therefore, the impugned detention order was passed without application of mind. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that the material which has been considered otherwise was a still born material and that there was absolutely no basis for taking any action much less a preventive action on the basis of those materials.

(3.) THUS the adverse cases were stale cases. It was liable to be seen that the accused was not involved in any prohibition case for one full year prior to the institution of the ground case. Even in those four adverse cases, there was nothing on record to suggest that the detenu/petitioner had sold liquor mixed with poisonous substance, affecting the public health, and therefore, it could not have been inferred by the Detaining Authority on that basis that the accused was likely to sell poisonous liquor and as such to act in a manner prejudicial to the public health and order. We have already shown that such inference was not possible on the basis of the last case. The grounds of detention suffer from all these lapses, with the result, it will be seen that the detention order suffers from not only non-application of mind, but also consideration of something which is extraneous and relying on the materials which are non-existent.