AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Balasubramanian, J.—This case has been taken out of turn, taking note of the fact that the detention order expires on 31.05.2000.
The petitioner is detained as a bootlegger under the Tamil Nadu Act 14/82 by detention order dated 31.05.1999. Mr. N. Doraisamy, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted only one point and that is as follows: The recovery mahazar found at page 33 of the booklet shows
the recovery of two samples of 500 ml. each in two containers. However, the chemical examiner''s report at page 53 of the booklet shows that the
sample received in one container and subject to test was of the volume of 520 ml. Therefore, there is discrepancy in the volume of the contraband
stated to have been recovered and the volume of contraband stated to have been sent to the laboratory for test.
A number of judgments are there not only by mis court but also by various other Division Benches of this Court holding that whenever such a
discrepancy is shown on record, it is the duty of the detaining authority to ask for clarification from the sponsoring authority and any failure to do so
would vitiate the order of detention, since mere is no guarantee as to what was recovered alone was sent to the laboratory for test. In this case
also, we find no explanation has been asked for by the detaining authority from the sponsoring authority. Following the long line of judgments we
have to hold mat the discrepancy in the volume of contraband recovered and tested goes to the root of the matter and there appears to be clear
non- application of mind, which vitiates the order of detention.
Accordingly, mis H.C.P. is allowed. The impugned order of detention is quashed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his
detention is required in connection with any other case.