Selvakumar v. The Secretary to the Government Home

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25.9.2007CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN ANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHIH.C.P.No.864 of 2007 Selvakumar.. PetitionerVs1. The Secretary to the Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.2. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai... RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Habeas Corpus as stated therein. For Petitioner: Mr.M.L.JeganFor Respondents: Mr.P.KumaresanAddl. Public ProsecutorO R D E R(Made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.)Aggrieved by the order of detention dated 19.4.2007 made in Ref. No.170/2007 passed by the second respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, DrugOffenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, SandOffenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14of 1982) to detain one Selvi @ Selvazhagi, wife of the petitioner, branding her as a Bootlegger, the petitioner, filed the above petition seeking to quash the order of detention and to direct the respondents to produce the detenue, who is now confined at Central Prison, Chennai before this Court and set her at liberty. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

On 6.4.2007, the Inspector of Police, Prohibition EnforcementWing, Madhavaram Unit, Chennai, found the detenue, along with two others, selling illicit arrack containing atropine of 8.3 mg per 100 ml, as per the chemical analysis report. A case was registered in Crime No.33/2007under Sections 4(1)(i), 4(1)(aaa) and 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu ProhibitionAct.

The second respondent, taking note of the above case as a ground case and finding that there are three adverse cases, ordered her detention dubbing her as a bootlegger.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is acontradiction with regard to the time of occurrence mentioned in the grounds of detention and in the FIR and therefore, the order of detentionis vitiated.

We have perused the entire materials placed before us. In theFIR and in the remand report, the sponsoring authority had stated that on6.4.2007 at about 6.00 hours he proceeded on rounds. But, in the grounds of detention, in paragraph 3, it has been stated that on 6.4.2007 at about8.00 hours, the sponsoring authority proceeded on rounds. When the sponsoring authority had clearly stated that he proceeded on rounds at6.00 hours on 6.4.2007, the detaining authority had erred in mentioning the time of occurrence.