Judgment :- K.M.Natarajan, J. The writ petition has been filed by the detenu under Art.226of the Constitution of India seeking for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus quashing the order of detention dated 28. 1991 and set him at liberty. 2. The detenu came to the adverse notice as a bootlegger in view of the cases referred to in the preamble of the grounds of detention and was detained on the basis of the ground case. The impugned order was passed by the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, the first respondent herein, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-sec.(1) ofSec.3ofthe 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 him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner, challenged the order on various grounds, he has now confined his arguments on the only ground that the ground case on the basis of which the detaining authority came to the conclusion that there was possibility of the detenu acting prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and on the basis of which the detention was issued, ended in acquittal holding that no such incident took place and in view of the finding of the competent criminal court, his continued detention is illegal. 4. It is to be noted though the writ petition was filed on 30.3.1992, no counter-affidavit has been filedon behalf of the respondent till this date. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor when asked about this, he is unable to repudiate the same. However, he would admit the acquittal of the case on the ground that the victim himself turned hostile and he deposed that no such occurrence took place. 5. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to the decision in Md.Jaufer Faleel Rahman v. The State of Tamil Nadu, (1988) L.W. (Crl.) 75 (S.N.), W.P.No.2014 of 1987 dated 12. 1987, by a Bench of this Court wherein it was held as follows: "Acquittal of the detenu in the criminal case filed in respect of the ground case duty of the executive while making the order of detention to apply its mind consideration. 1987, by a Bench of this Court wherein it was held as follows: "Acquittal of the detenu in the criminal case filed in respect of the ground case duty of the executive while making the order of detention to apply its mind consideration. Though it is not correct to say that solely or mainly because the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case, he is entitled to be enlarged from preventive detention, at the same time, it does not follow that the termination of the proceeding in a criminal case in favour of the petitioner on identical facts is of no consequence. The facts and circumstances of each case have ultimately to demarcate the callous or colourable exercise of power from the activist or alert application of the Executive’s mind in making the impugned order. In this case, it is not challenged that the criminal court found that the seizure has not been satisfactorily established and the statement given by the petitioner was not voluntary. Inasmuch as the seizure has not been established in the criminal court the very basis of the order of detention goes. His continued detention is, therefore, illegal". Applying the ratio to the facts of this case and in view of the finding of the criminal court that no such occurrence took place and the accused was acquitted, we have no hesitation in holding that the continued detention of the petitioner in the circumstances of this case is illegal. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention is quashed and the petitioner is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in connection with any other case.