@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
T. Jayarama Chouta, J.@mdashThe Petitioner has been detained as a ''Boot-legger'' under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 in Pursuance of an order
of detention dated 27.9.97 passed by the second Respondent/District Magistrate & Collector Vellore District, Sathuvachari, Vellore with a view
to preventing him from acting in any manner. prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and Public health.
2. We do not deem it necessary to narrate the facts in detail which led to the passing of the impugned order of detention, for this Habeas Corpus
Petition will have to be allowed on a short ground of non application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority.
3. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that the sample of arrack which was sold by the detenu was taken in bottles and sealed and
numbered as bottle Nos. 5 and 6. However, the chemical report deals only with bottle Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and hence, there is no proof or material to
show that the detenu was indulging in sale of liquor with atropine. Further, the requisition for chemical analysis mentioned that sample Nos. 1, 3
and 5 were to be sent for analysis, where as there is no mention in the analyst report about the sample No. 5 having been received and the analysis
only pertains to sample Nos. 1, 3 and 4. In the First Information Report it is mentioned that the sample of fermented wash was taken and
numbered as bottle Nos. 1 and 2 and a sample of arrack which was being distilled was cooled and taken as sample Nos. 5 and 6. There is no
mention in the First Information Report about what pertains to sample Nos. 3 and 4.
4. In the Counter filed by the District Magistrate and Collector of Vellore District, he has stated as follows:
Though a requisition was submitted to send few sample bottles for analysis, the Court can send another batch of sample bottle for analysis.
According to him, the contradiction in the bottle number cannot be a ground to state the sample does not contain any poisonous substance.
Probably, it may be a point that can be raised in the Court during the trial of the case.
Further he has mentioned that at the time of trial the Petitioner can also make a request to send another batch of sample bottles for chemical
analysis. On this ground, he has submitted that the ground raised by the Petitioner cannot survive.
5. We have perused the rival contentions. Unless, the Detaining Authority is satisfied that the alcohol sold by the detenu was poisonous and contain
atropine, he cannot be detained. In the present case, there is no clear proof regarding that fact. The Detaining Authority could have got clarified
from the sponsoring authority regarding this discrepancy, which has not been done. Even the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents
does not show that the Sponsoring Authority was aware of the fact that the detenu was selling liquor with atropine. According to us, the Detaining
Authority has not applied his mind, while passing the impugned order of detention. This ground alone is sufficient to quash the detention order.
6. Accordingly, the impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to to released forthwith, unless his detention is otherwise
required This Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.
