Judgment :- Thanikkachalam, J. The detenu is the petitioner herein. The petition is to issue a writ a habeas corpus calling for the records pertaining to the detention order of Muthusamy, son of Chellappan passed by the first respondent in order No.C.M.P. No.17/B.L.A./ 95(C2), dated 30.8.1995, and produce the body of the detenu, now detained in the Central Prison, Salem, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. 2. On 18. 1995 at 5 p.m. the petitioner/detenu Muthusamy, son of Chellappan, Moolapathai, Koranampatty Post, Edappady Police Station Limits, Sankari Taluk, Salem District, sold illicit arrack with poisonous substance to one Balu alias Jayapal, aged 38 years, S/o.Palani of Ka.Pudur, Edapaddy and the said Balu alias Jayapal after consuming the alcohol felt burning sensation in his throat and blurring of eyes, gave a written complaint on 18. 1995 against the petitioner complaining about the sale of illicit arrack with poisonous substance, and after investigation by the police, the petitioner/detenu was detained by the detention order, dated 30.8.1995 passed by the first respondent. 3. According to the respondent-Police, Muthusamy was found selling arrack in the backside of his house, the arrack was sold to one Balu alias Jayapal. After consuming the alcohol, Balu alias Jayapal felt burning sensation in his throat. Thereafter Balu alias Jayapal went to his house at Edappady. He felt his eyes become blurred and also felt giddiness. He suspected that Muthusamy the petitioner/detenu might have mixed some poisonous substance in the arrack sold to him and requested the police to take action against the said Muthusamy, on receipt of the complaint, the Sub-Inspector of Police P.E.W. Edappady, registered a case in Edappady P.E.W. Crime No.2817 of 1995 under Secs.4(1)(i) and 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, at 8 a.m. on 18. 1995 the complainant Balu alias Jayapal was sent to the Government Hospital, Edapaddy for treatment. 4. Immediately, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Edapaddy, proceeded to Koranampatty, for investigation, with his party. The petitioner/Muthusamy was found selling arrack in front of his house and the said Muthusamy was arrested. Muthusamy, the petitioner admitted his offence and gave a confessional statement about the detenu substance mixed with the arrack and sold to Balu alias Jayapal. The Sub-Inspector of Police has taken two bottles of samples, each containing about 500 ml. The petitioner/Muthusamy was found selling arrack in front of his house and the said Muthusamy was arrested. Muthusamy, the petitioner admitted his offence and gave a confessional statement about the detenu substance mixed with the arrack and sold to Balu alias Jayapal. The Sub-Inspector of Police has taken two bottles of samples, each containing about 500 ml. of I.D. Arrack and sent for chemical examination, by a request made to the court, which is having the jurisdiction. Muthusamy was sent for remand to Judicial Magistrate II, Sankari and he was remanded in Sub-Jail, Sankari, as a remand prisoner. The Sub-Inspector of Police P.E.W. Edapaddy has examined Dr.P.Selvaraj M.B.B.S., Civil Assistant Surgeon of Government Hospital, Edapaddy, and recorded his statement about his rendering the treatment to the complainant Balu alias Jayapal. Thereafter, the Inspector of Police P.E.W. Edapaddy, took up further investigation. In the meanwhile, the samples sent to the chemical examination was also returned with the certificate stating that the sample contains ethyl alcohol and it was arrack and the toxic Principal of datura equivalent to 4.6% mg of Atropine in 100 ml of I.D. Arrack. The Inspector of Police examined the Civil Assistant Surgeon Dr.P.Selvaraj, M.B.B.S., Government Hospital, Edapaddy, for his opinion on the results given in the chemical analysis report. The doctor has opined for Atropine, is a poisonous substance and 3.5% mg. or above of Atropine, mixed with 100 ml. of arrack would be fatal. From the above material the Detaining Authority came to the conclusion that Muthusamy the petitioner herein, is a bootlegger, selling I.D. Arrack, mixed with poisonous substance, in contravention of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health, Accordingly the Detaining Authority passed the order, detaining the said Muthusamy/‘petitioner herein. 5. On these facts, among various other grounds, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/detenu submitted that in a statement before the Investigating Officer Dr.P.Selvaraj said that he examined the said Balu alias Jayapal and found that he consumed I.D. arrack with poisonous substance, he also said that he gave a certificate of his examination of the said person. But the materials on record would go to show that Dr.Kothandaraman, Civil Surgeon of Government Hospital, Edapaddy, examined the said Balu alias Jayapal, on 18. 1995 and found that he consumed I.D. Arrack with poisonous substance. But the materials on record would go to show that Dr.Kothandaraman, Civil Surgeon of Government Hospital, Edapaddy, examined the said Balu alias Jayapal, on 18. 1995 and found that he consumed I.D. Arrack with poisonous substance. On these materials, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Detaining Authority was influenced by the statement given by Dr.P.Selvaraj, who has not examined the said Balu alias Jayapal, even though the said person was examined by Dr.Kothandaraman. The alleged certificate given by Dr.P. Selvaraj was not placed before the Detaining Authority. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the Detaining Authority was influenced by the statement given by Dr.P.Selvaraj and passed the order of detention, on wrong facts, which would prejudice the right of the detenu to make effective, proper and purposeful representation. We have also heard the learned public prosecutor on this aspect and pursued the records carefully. The statements recorded by K. Subramanian, Inspector of Police, Prohibition, Edapaddy, on 18. 1995, would go to show that Balu alias Jayapal was examined by one Dr.P.Selvaraj. Dr.P. Selvaraj has also stated after examining the said Balu alias Jayapal, he gave a certificate. 6. There is also a certificate issued by one Dr.Kothandaramn, Civil Surgeon, dated 18. 1995. According to the said certificate, the said Balu alias Jayapal was examined by him and he found that the said Balu alias Jayapal consumed illicit arrack with poisonous substance. But this certificate was not brought to the notice of the Detaining Authority. Hence, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that on the basis of the statement given by Dr.Selvaraj before the Investigating Officer, the Detaining Authority was influenced to come to the conclusion that the detenu sold I.D. Arrack with poisonous substance, consumed by the said Balu alias Jayapal. A careful consideration of the documents perused by us and the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would clearly go to show that the Detaining Authority was wrongly influenced by the statement made by Dr.Selvaraj who has not examined the said Balu alias Jayapal. This would have definitely created a confusion in the mind of the Detaining Authority in passing the detention order. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this would have also prevented the detenu to make effective, proper and purposeful representation before the Detaining Authority. This would have definitely created a confusion in the mind of the Detaining Authority in passing the detention order. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this would have also prevented the detenu to make effective, proper and purposeful representation before the Detaining Authority. In view of the above said confusion, on the basis of which the order of detention was passed could not be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly the detention order passed by the Detaining Authority (1st respondent), dated 30.8.1995 stands set aside and the petitioner/detenu is directed to be release forthwith, if he is not otherwise required for any other offence. This habeas corpus petition is allowed accordingly.