(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) In this writ petition, challenge is made to the order of detention, dated 14.08.2008, made by the 2nd respondent, terming the detenu by name Kandhasamy, the husband of the petitioner, as a 'Bootlegger'.
2.Pursuant to the recommendations made by the sponsoring authority that the detenu is involved in four adverse cases and in one ground case in Crime No.1274/2008 registered under Sections 4(1)(i), 4(1)(aaa) r/w 4(1- A) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, on the file of Thiruverumbur Unit PEW, for the occurrence which is said to have taken place on 20.07.2008, the detaining authority, the 2nd respondent, after looking into the materials available, formed an opinion that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health and hence he has got to be detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982 terming him as a 'Bootlegger'. Accordingly, the detention order, which is under challenge in this petition, came to be passed by the 2nd respondent on 14.08.2008.
3.Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the wife of the detenu, the learned counsel would urge only one ground, as the prime ground, before this Court in his attempt to assail the order of detention. He would submit that the ground case in Crime No.1274/2008 was registered by Thiruverumbur Unit PEW at 17.00 hours on 20.07.2008, following the arrest of the detenu at about 14.00 hours, when he was found in possession of illicit arrack, but the Arrest Card contains the crime number. Added further the counsel, if the arrest was made when the detenu was found in possession of illicit arrack and the arrest card was prepared at 14.00 hours and thereafter he was brought to the police station and registered the case, the arrest card could not have contained the crime number and, therefore, it casts a doubt in the preparation of the arrest card and if that be so, the detaining authority should have called for an explanation from the sponsoring authority but, he failed to do so and this shows non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority as to the materials placed before him, which vitiates the order of detention.
4.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contention and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made by the counsel on either side.
5.Admittedly, the ground case in Crime No.1274/2008 on the file of Thiruverumbur Unit PEW was registered at 17.00 hours on 20.07.2008 and the materials would indicate that the detenu was arrested at 14.00 hours on the same day when he was found in possession of illicit arrack. Had it been actually the arrest card was prepared at the place of arrest at 14.00 hours, then the arrest card would not have contained the crime number of the said case, but it contain the crime number. If that be so, the detaining authority should have called for an explanation from the sponsoring authority as to the availability of the crime number in the arrest card but, he miserably failed to do so. This failure on the part of the detaining authority, in the opinion of the court, shows non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority as to the materials placed before him before clamping the order of detention on the detenu and hence on this ground, the impugned order is liable to quashed.
6.Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition is allowed and the order of detention in No. Cr.M.P.32/2008, dated 14.08.2008, passed by the 2nd respondent is quashed. The detenu Kandasamy, son of Muthukaruppan, is directed to be released forthwith, unless his presence, in accordance with law, is required in connection with any other case.
gb To:
1.The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Trichy District, Trichy.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.