VADIVEL Vs. THE STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE son of the detenu has preferred this petition, challenging the order of detention.

(2.) THE detenu Pachiappan was involved in seven adverse cases, all registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. In all these seven cases, Pachiappan was convicted and sentenced to pay fine. While so, on 10.3.1999, at about 8 a.m. Arumugam appeared before the Inspector of Police, Tiruchengode Prohibition Enforcement Wing, and lodged a complaint. He stated that on 9.3.1999, on enquiry, he came to know that Thiru.Pachiappan was selling arrack. Therefore, he went mere at about 8 p.m. on 9.3.1999 and found Pachiappan vending arrack. The complainant Arumugam, thereupon paid Rs.10/ - and asked for one tumbler of arrack. When Arumugam consumed the arrack, he found it to be of different taste and odour and also had a burning sensation in his throat. When Arumugam asked Pachiappan about the same, Pachiappan told him that it is specially made to provide more intoxication. The complainant returned home by about 9 pm. He vomited on reaching home. He regained conscious at 6 a.m. on the next day and from his wife, he came to know that he thrice vomited during the night and he received native treatment from her. Therefore, Arumugam suspected that Pachiappan sold him arrack mixed with poisonous substance and hence, he went and lodged the complaint. The Inspector of Police, Tiruchengode Prohibition Enforcement Wing recorded the statement of Arumugam and registered a case in Crime No. 496/99 under Section 4(1) (i) read with Section 4(1 -A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. He sent Arumugam to Tiruchengode Government Hospital for treatment with police memo. The Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing along with his party and two independent witnesses went to the place where Pachiappan was vending arrack. He found him at the spot and arrested him. Pachiappan confessed to the offence and gave a statement which was recorded by the inspector of Police. Then the Inspector seized the arrack found in a white can and drew out samples from the same. He destroyed the remaining quantity at the spot and drew up a mahazar. Then he brought the accused Pachiappan along with the contraband to the police Station. Thereafter making a search of Pachiappan, he produced him for remand before the concerned Magistrate.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Sankarasubbu contended that the remand order has not been placed before the Detaining Authority. Nor a copy of it has been furnished to the detenu, though he asked for the same specifically. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on this ground, the order of detention would stand vitiated.