AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
David Annoussamy, J.—This is a petition by the wife of the detenu under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus quashing the order of detention and setting the detenu at liberty.
2, The order of detention was passed initially by the Collector and District Magistrate, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil on 25.3.1988. It was subsequently approved and confirm by the Government. The detenu was detained under sub S.(1) of S 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot leggers, Drug Offenders, Goon-das. Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as a bootlegger.
The main ground urged by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Petitioner is not a bootlegger within the definition of the Act ; that being a bootlegger was different from being guilty of an offence under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. We shall therefore consider that contention. As per Section 2(a)(i) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, a bootlegger is a person engaged or making preparations for engaging in any of his activities as a bootlegger which affect adversely, or are likely to affect adversely, the maintenance of public order. The term ''bootlegger'' is being defined u/s 2(b) of the Act, among other persons to include those who sell or distribute any liquor, intoxicating drug or other intoxicant in contravention of any of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act 1937. In the explanation to S. 2(a), as far as bootlegger is concerned, public order shall be deemed to be affected adversely if any of his activities is causing or calculate to cause a grave or widespread danger to life or public health. We have therefore to ascertain whether the detaining authority has exercised properly the operation of coming to a subjective satisfaction whether the activities of the detenu were susceptible of causing a grave or widespread danger to life or public health.
It is seen from the records that the alcoholic drink that the detenu was selling was containing 0.05 MV of Chloral Hydrate. The opinion of the doctor, who was consulted is that, in general, Chloral Hydrate is a chemical substance on consuming which, the individual develops skin rashes, vomitting and burning pain in the stomach. He further added that the principal action is on the nervous system, producing drowsiness, unconsciousness, deep sleep, finally coma, paralysis of respiratory centre, failure to heart, etc. But the opinion of the doctor does not state what is the ratio of Chloral Hydrate in the liquor, which constitutes a grave danger to public health. At any rate, on record, there is nothing to show that 0.05 MV of Chloral Hydrate would constitute a grave danger to public health, within the meaning of the definition under the Act. On the contrary, the person complainant who consumed the liquor sold by the detenu, himself stated that after consumption, he got irritation of the skin, vomitting, burning pain in the stomach, then he became unconscious for a moment, but however he managed to reach his house and that he became alright as soon as his wife gave native treatment. Therefore it is obvious that the liquor sold by the detenu was not such as to cause grave or widespread danger to life or public health. This act of the detenu may constitute an offence under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, which fact, the concerned Court will consider independently uninfluenced by any of the observations that we have made in the disposal of this writ petition. The conclusion from the above reasonings is that the detenu is not a bootlegger within the meaning of the Act and therefore the detention order passed against him is illegal.
In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the order of detention is set aside.