B DEVARAJAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order in challenge is passed on 14-9-1998 against one Murugan dubbing him to be a 'bootlegger'. The order is passed by the District Magistrate and District Collector, Karur. The authority has reported three adverse cases under Section 4(1)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 and in the ground case an incident dated 31-8-1998 is relied on.

(2.) It is generally stated in the ground case the detenu was an arrack seller and when the arrack sold by him was consumed by one Vallalan, he felt giddy and there was irritation in his chest and his eyes got blurred. Thereby, it is suggested in the ground case that the arrack sold was poisonous arrack and by selling the poisonous arrack, the detenu had committed an offence under Section 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 in addition to the offence under Section 4(1)(i) of the Act. It is specifically stated therein that the sample of arrack collected from the detenu on 31-8-1998 was chemically tested and it was found that there was 0.64 mg% atropine in the said arrack. At the end of paragraph 3 the following sentences appear.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner at the outset contended that a representation was made by the detenu on 29-10-1998. He points out, in that representation the detenu had specifically sought for an explanation and the papers regarding the liquid tragedy death case which were reported from the adjacent villages. The detenu had also sought information about the place. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel that the representation has been casually disposed of even without calling for the remarks. Learned Counsel points out that the point raised in the representation by seeking source of information of the statement made in the grounds could not have been lightly rejected by the State Government casually without calling for the remarks from the sponsoring authority. Learned Counsel points out that the State Government did not bother to call for the remarks and has casually and mechanicallyrejected the representation on 9-11-1998. In addition to this, learned Counsel secondly contends that this was a relied on circumstance in respect of which the documents have been sought for were bound to be supplied. Since these documents were not supplied, the petitioner's right to make effective representation came under serious jeopardy.