AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.M. Natarajan, J.—This Writ Petition has been filed by the detenu himself under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus, quashing the order of detention dated 28.2.92 of the District Magistrate and Collector of Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri, the first Respondent herein, and setting him at liberty. The detenu came to the adverse notice as a bootlegger in view of the three cases referred to in the preamble of the grounds of the detention and was detained on the basis of the ground case by the District Magistrate and Collector of Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri, the first Respondent herein, in exercise of powers conferred u/s 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), hereinafter referred to as act, with a view to preventing him from indulging in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public Order.
The facts which led to the passing of the impugned order of detention have been set out in detail in the grounds of detention which has been duly served on the detenu and we do not propose to reiterate the same in view of the limited plea taken by the counsel for the Petitioner Mr. K. Selvarangam, Though the learned Counsel for the Petitioner challenged the impugned order on many grounds, he confined his arguments only to ground No. F of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ petition wherein it is stated that in paragraph three of grounds of detention detaining authority stated that the Analysis report revealed that the sample arrack containing 4.63 mg of atropine, a poisonous substance found in dathura per 100 ml. Whereas chemical analysis report shows only 4.05 mg. atropine found in dathura per 100 ml. Hence the detaining authority passed the order mechanically without applying his mind.
Though the Writ petition was admitted on 29.4.1992, the Respondents entered appearance on 29.6.1992 and took time for filing counter but only the second Respondent has filed the counter affidavit. The second Respondent did not chose to traverse those contentions. Hence the averments stated in support of the grounds stand unrebutted. However, learned Counsel for the Petitioner drew our attention to the grounds of detention at page six wherein it is stated as follows:
The Analysis report revealed that the sample arrack contains 4.63 mg. of Atropine, a poisonous substance found in datura, per 100 ml. The opinion of Dr. Thiru Shanmugham, M.D. Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Krishnagiri reveals that atropine is a poisonous substance and if any one consumes arrack mixed with atropine, it might cause giddiness, vomitting, stomach pain, blurring of vision and it might even affect the respiratory system. Depending upon the quantity consumed and depending upon the individual and the time, it might even cause death.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner drew our attention to the report of the Analyst and contended that analyst''s report shows only 4.05 mg and in the documents furnished to the detenu, the percentage of atropine is shown as 4.63 mg. and it is not known on what basis the detaining authority has stated in the grounds of detention of 4.63 mg. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that it is a case of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. He also fairly conceded that in the instant case the analyst has not given definite opinion with regard to the fatel dose as he has only stated that consumption, depending upon the quantity consumed and depending upon the individual and the time, it might even cause death but he has not given definite opinion about the percentage, found in the contraband seized from the detenu, would cause danger to life.
Thus, we have no hesitation in holding both on the ground of non-application of mind with regard to the percentage of atropine found in the contraband, by the analyst, and on the ground of absence of definite opinion with regard to the fatel dose, the impugned order is vitiated.
In the result, the Writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.