Ayyammal vs The Secretary to Govt., Prohibition and Excise Dept., The District Magistrate and District Collector and The Superintendent, Central Prison

S. Ashok Kumar, J.—The second respondent, District Magistrate, Virudhunagar District, clamped the order of detention branding the

husband of the petitioner Mariappan @ Anja Thevar as a Drug Offender. The said detention order of the second respondent is being challenged

by the wife of the detenu.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Sponsoring Authority, viz., the Inspector of Police, Vathirayiruppu Police Station,

Virudhunagar District had a pre-determined notion to invoke Act 14/82 and for that purpose, this case was foisted on the detenu. Further the

learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that though two quantities of Ganja was said to have been seized from the detenu i.e., one for 210

grams and another for 300 grams from two places, only sample taken up from 210 grams was sent for chemical analysis and sample taken from

300 grams was not sent for chemical analysis and as such there is no scientific proof that the 300 grams said to have been seized from the detenu is

Ganja.

With regard to the first point, namely the Sponsoring Authority had a pre-determined notion to invoke Act 14/82 against the detenu could be

seen from the undated letter, addressed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, found in page 87 of the paper booklet,

wherein he has specifically mentioned that ""since he wants to take action against the accused by invoking the Bootleggers Act, priority may be

given to the seized property for chemical analysation."" Obviously, this undated letter should have been addressed only on 22.7.2004, the date on

which the requisition was sent to the Forensic Laboratory. This shows the pre-determined notion on the part of the Sponsoring Authority to invoke

Act 14/82 against the detenu.

Again, from page No. 85 of the paper booklet, it could be seen that the Inspector of Police has sent a letter to the Special Court dealing with

Essential Commodities Act Cases at Pudukottai, requesting the Court to send the sample of 50 grams for chemical analysis. It is seen from the said

letter that 50 grams was taken as sample from 210 grams seized from the accused and sent for chemical analysation, whereas, the sample taken

from 300 grams kept in a bag and hidden in a bush near a temple was not sent for chemical analysation, and as such there is no proof that the said

contraband is also Ganja. On the other hand, the Detaining Authority has come to the conclusion as seen from Paragraph 3 of the grounds of

detention that this 300 grams of contraband is also Ganja, which is not scientifically proved by chemical analysation, which shows total non-

application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority while passing the impugned detention order. On both these grounds the order of

detention is liable to be quashed and the same is accordingly quashed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his presence is

required in connection with any other case.