THANGAM Vs. COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU DEPARTMENT OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE FORT ST GEORGE MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by the wife of the detenu under Art.226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus quashing the order of detention and setting the detenu at liberty.

(2.) THE order of detention was passed initially by the Collector and District Magistrate, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil on 25.3.1988. It was subsequently approved and confirmed by the Government. The detenu was detained under Sub -sec.(1) of Sec.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), with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as a bottlegger.

(3.) IT is seen from the records that the alcoholic drink that the detenu was selling was containing 0.05 MV of Chloral Hydrate. The opinion of the doctor, who was consulted is that, in general Chloral Hydrate is a chemical substance on consuming which, the individual develops skin rashes, vomitting and burning pain in the stomach. He further added that the principal action is on the nervous system, producing drowsiness, unconsciousness, deep sleep, finally coma, paralysis of respiratory centre, failure to heart, etc. But the opinion of the doctor does not state what is the ratio of Chloral Hydrate in the liquor, which constitutes a grave danger to public health. At any rate, on record, there is nothing to show that 0.05 MV of Chloral Hydrate would constitute a grave danger to public health, within the meaning of the definition under the Act. On the contrary, the person complainant who consumed the liquor sold by the detenu, himself stated that after consumption, he got irritation of the skin, vomitting, burning pain in the stomach, then he became unconscious for a moment, but however he managed to reach his house and that he became alright as soon as his wife gave native treatment. Therefore, it is obvious that the liquor sold by the detenu was not such as to cause grave or widespread danger to life or public health. This act of the detenu may constitute an offence under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, which fact, the concerned Court will consider independently uninfluenced by any of the observations that we have made in the disposal of this writ petition. The conclusion from the above reasonings is that the detenu is not a bootlegger within the meaning of the Act and therefore the detention order passed against him is illegal.