Sarasu @ Shenjuvalli vs The Commissioner of Police and another

K.M. Natarajan, J.—This writ petition is filed by the detenu herself seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus quashing the order

of detention dated 6.3.1992, and set her at liberty. The detenu came to the adverse notice as bootlegger in view of the 12 cases referred to in the

preamble of the grounds of detention and was detained on the basis of the ground case by the Commissioner of Police, Madras City, Madras, the

first Respondent herein, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 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), with a view

to preventing her from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The facts which led to the passing of the impugned

order have been set out in detail and the same has been served on the detenu. Hence we do not propose to reiterate the same herein. Though the

impugned order was challenged on many grounds stated in the affidavit of the Petitioner, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner confined his

argument to the only ground raised in para 6 of the affidavit wherein it is stated:

I state that the certificate issued by the Director, Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Laboratory mentions that the alleged sample of I.D. arrack

contained 116 mg % weight by volume of chloral hydrate and the same is an intoxicating poisonous substance. I submit that I did not sell any

arrack nor any arrack containing the chloral hydrate was seized from me. Assuming for the purpose of argument that the arrack contained 116 mg

% weight by volume of chloral hydrate. I am advised to submit that the quantity is not sufficient to term it as poisonous.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the certificate issued by Dr. Yogam, Assistant Professor of Forensic

Medicine, Madras Medical College, Madras-3, which certificate the detaining authority has relied on the certificate shows that the consumption of

3 grams of chloral hydrate will cause danger to life. In the instant case, the percentage of chloral hydrate in the I.D. Arrack is only 116 mg %

weight by volume. It is negligible. Relying on the certificate issued by Dr. Yogam, the detaining authority has said that Dr. Yogam has certified to

the effect that chloral hydrate is an intoxicating poisonous substance and consumption of arrack mixed with 116 mg % weight by volume chloral

hydrate and above is highly injurious to health. As pointed out, the certificate of Dr. Yogam is not to that effect. The certificate is to the effect that

the consumption of three grams of chloral hydrate and above is injurious to health. As such, the said order is vitiated on the ground of non-

application of mind. Thus, in view of the opinion of the doctor that the consumption of 3 grams of chloral hydrate is dangerous to health (according

to the report of the Chemical Examiner the arrack seized from the detenu contained 116 mg per cent weight by volume) and on the ground of non-

application of mind on the part of the detaining authority, we find every force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in this

regard. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly submitted that in view of the fact that since the doctor has not expressed the opinion that

the percentage of chloral hydrate found in the contraband seized from the detenu is sufficient to cause widespread danger to life, the necessary

ingredient for holding the detenu as bootlegger under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 is lacking.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is quashed and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless she is

required in connection with any other cause.