ABDULLAH Vs. STATE AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who has been detained under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug offenders Goondas, Immoral Traffic offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act XIV of 1982), has preferred this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging his detention and seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus for his release.

(2.) The 2nd respondent, the Collector of Periyar District, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Sec. 3 (1) of the Act, on being satisfied that the Petitioner was bootlegger and having taken note of the two prior adverse cases in which the petitioner as involved on 2-6-87 and 7-7-87 passed for offences under sections 4 (1) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, the order of detention on the basis of the ground case which had taken place on 15-9-87 leading to the registration of Crime No. 3303/87 on the file of the Prohibition Enforcement Wing Unit, Erode, for an offence under section 4(1) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. The arrack that was seized, on being chemically analysed, was found to contain Chloral hydrate, which according to the doctor, is a poisonous substance the consumption of which is injurious to health and life. The 2nd respondent, on being satisfied that preventive detention was necessary on facts placed before him passed the impugned order of detention, dated 9-11-87.

(3.) The only ground urged by Mr. P. Venkatasubramanian, learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the quantity of arrack seized from the petitioner is mentioned as 500 ml in the first information report, the seizurc mahazar, and form-95, the quantity of arrack is shown as 650 ml. in the report of the Chemical analyst. According to the learned counsel, the difference in quantity cannot be said to be marginal but is abnormal. Naturally this must have evoked the attention of the Detaining Authority to satisfy himself about the cause of this discrepancy in the quantity of the arrack seized and despatched for analysis. The learned Public Prosecutor, who was heard, submits that at the place of seizure only an approximate quantity had been mentioned while in the laboratory in view of the precision equipments available, a correct measurement had been stated.