S.Kanniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu
Case at a glance
- Bench
- P D DINAKARAN
Outcome
Set aside
In the result, the order of detention is set aside and theHabeas Corpus Petition is allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. We have perused the entire materials placed before us. In the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has observed that arequisition was given to Court to forward any one of seized sample bottles of arrack for Chemical Analysis to the Regional ForensicScience Laboratory and…
- Para 55. In the result, the order of detention is set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.sraTo1. The…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.01.2008CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN ANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHIH.C.P.No.1594 of 2007S.Kanniappan.. PetitionerVs1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary to Govt., Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
The District Magistrate & District Collector, Vellore District, Vellore... RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Habeas Corpus as stated therein. For Petitioner: Mr.O.S.Thilak PasumbadiyarFor Respondents: Mr.N.R.ElangoAddl. Public ProsecutorO R D E R(Made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.)The petitioner, cousin brother of the detenu by name Annamalai, who was incarcerated at Central Prison, Vellore, by order dated31.10.2007 of the second respondent under the provisions of the TamilNadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, DrugOffenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, SandOffenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act14 of 1982) branding him as a Bootlegger, seeks a writ of HabeasCorpus to call for the records in connection with the said order of detention made in proceedings C3/D.O.No.99/2007, to quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Courtand set him at liberty.2.1.
On the basis of the complaint lodged by one Kuppan that on the morning of 10.10.2007, while returning home after attending his https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ work, he bought arrack from the detenu and after consuming the same, he felt giddiness and unable to walk, he fell down and he suspected that the detenu would have mixed some poisonous substances in order to boost the intoxication in the liquor, the Inspector of Policeattached to Veppankuppam Police Station proceeded to the spot and noticing the detenu selling illicit arrack arrested him and brought to the police station along with seized articles including samples ofarrack. A case was registered against the detenu in VeppankuppamP.S. Crime No.276/2007 for offences under Sections 4(1)i(aaa) and 4(1-A)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act r/w Section 328 IPC and later, the detenu was sent to Court for judicial remand. The sample of arrack was found admixed with 6.4 mg.% of atropine, as per the chemical analysis report.2.2.The Detaining Authority taking note of the above ground case as well as four adverse cases of similar nature on the file of the same police station, viz. in Crime Nos.150/2006, 450/2006, 471/2006and 261/2007 and having satisfied that there is compelling necessity to detain the detenu in order to prevent him from indulging in such activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and order, clamped the impugned detention order on him.
The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when there is no whisper either in the list of articles seized from the spot about the seizure of fermented wash or the receipt of the same by the chemical analyst, it is not known how the detaining authority has observed that the Assistant Director and Assistant Chemical Examiner analysed the sample arrack and fermented wash and gave his report that the liquid contains ethyl alcohol, atropine, etc., which is an incorrect statement of fact and without any supporting material and hence, the impugned order of detention vitiates on the ground of non-application of mind by the detaining authority.
We have perused the entire materials placed before us. In the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has observed that arequisition was given to Court to forward any one of seized sample bottles of arrack for Chemical Analysis to the Regional ForensicScience Laboratory and further observed that the Asst. Director and Asst. Chemical Examiner to Government, Regional Forensic ScienceLaboratory, Vellore, who analysed the sample arrack and fermented wash, has stated in his report that the liquid contains ethylalcohol, acids, esters, higher alcohols, aldehydes and atropine. But, neither in the requisition made by the police to the Court, which is found at page 34 of the paper book, nor in the chemical analysis report dated 15.10.2007, found at page 39 of the paper book, we find that fermented wash was seized from the spot and sent for chemical analysis and that on receipt of the arrack and the fermented wash, the chemical analyst analysed the same and gave his report opining that the liquid contained ethyl alcohol, acids, esters, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ higher alcohols, aldehydes and atropine. There is an incorrect statement of fact, apparent on the face of record, which reflects thenon-application of mind by the detaining authority and thus, vitiates the impugned order of detention.
Operative part
In the result, the order of detention is set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.sraTo1. The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai 9.2. The District Collector & District Magistrate, Vellore District, Vellore.3. The Superintendent Central Prison, Vellore.4. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.5. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public [Law and Order] Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 9.H.C.P.No.1594 of 2007akr[co]gp/22.1.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, the order of detention is set aside and theHabeas Corpus Petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Aii of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 328.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.