Palaniammal vs State of Tamil Nadu and others

Venkataswami, J.—The detenue, aggrieved by the detention as a bootlegger, has preferred this writ petition, under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus, for her release.

The detention order was passed on the basis of Doctor''s certificate. The question of law is covered by an earlier decision of this Court, about

which there is no dispute by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Therefore, we need not set out the facts in detail.

The contention for challenging the detention order is like this : The Certificate given by the Medical Officer is general in nature, without giving

specific opinion and, therefore, it vitiates the detention Order.

We find force in the above contention. In P. Rajendran v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 1992 LW147, a Division Bench of this Court has

taken the view after referring to an earlier case but that unless there is a positive opinion from the Medical Officer about the quantum of atropine

required for causing widespread danger to the life and that that quantum of percentage was present, it cannot be said that the person from whom

atropine was seized, can be described as a bootlegger and he can be detained under the Act. We have also followed the ratio laid down by the

Division Bench in several cases. The detaining authority has observed in the detention order as follows :-

....... During the course of investigation Dr. K. Meiyazhagan, Asst. Professor, Department of Forensic Science, Madurai Medical College,

Madurai has stated in his report dated 6-3-92 that the signs and symptoms experienced by Thiru Selvam are due to the consumption of I.D.

arrack mixed with atropine and if it is consumed in large quantities, it will produce fatal complication ...

This opinion is not specific. Applying the ratio held in the above cases, we hold that the doctor''s certificate in the present case being very general in

nature, is fatal to the detention order.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, the detention order is quashed and the respondents are directed to release the detenu forthwith unless

she is required in connection with any other case.

Petition allowed.