SELVARAJ Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, is the friend of Sambar alias Ranganathan, who has been detained as bootlegger under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 in pursuance of an order of detention dated 13-11-1997 passed by the second respondent the District Collector and District Magistrate, Cuddalore, with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health.

(2.) To meet the few contentions raised by the learned counsel Mr. Sankara Subbu on behalf of the petitioner, we do not deem it necessary to narrate the facts in detail, which led to the passing of the impugned order of detention by the second respondent. It will be sufficient to mention that there were two adverse cases to the credit of the detenu registered in Nellikuppam Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 4(1)(g) and 4(1) (I) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, the period ranging from March, 1997 to August 1997. In both the cases, the detenu was found guilty and he has paid the fine amount. While so, on 1-11-1997 at 2 p.m., the Inspector of Police, Nellikuppam along with police party conducted prohibition raid at Naduveerapattu and at the place of Pathirakottai, back yard of the accused's house, they noticed that the detenu was selling I. D. arrack and he has been arrested. They found 30 litres of I. D. arrack with poisonous smell in a black colour plastic can. They seized the said I. D. arrack and the sale proceeds from the detenu under a cover of mahazar in the presence of two witnesses. A case was registered in Nellikuppam Police Station at 5 p.m. on the same day in Crl. No. 1121 of 1997 under Section 4(1) (i) and 4(1-A) of the T. N. P. Act, 1937. The case was under investigation. After follow up action, the order of detention was passed.

(3.) The first contention of Mr. Sankara Subbu, learned counsel for the petitioner was that there were no materials before the detaining Authority to show that the detenu was on remand on 30-11-1997 i.e., the date on which the detention order was passed by the detaining Authority and hence, the detention order is liable to be set aside as the detaining Authority has passed the order without there being materials before him, or if materials were before him, those said materials were not being supplied to the detenu. We heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on this point. When he pointed out from the records that the said remand from 1-11-1997 has been furnished to the detenu which is found in his paper book at page 26, learned counsel for the petitioner has to admit that the said material is found in the said paper. Hence, this contention has no force and accordingly, it has to be rejected.