Judgment :- V.S. Sirpurkar, J. Petitioner herein challenges his own detention. The detention order was passed on 31. 1997 by the District Magistrate and Collector, North Arcot Ambedkar District, Vellore, The petitioner is detained as he was considered to be a bootlegger within the meaning of Sec.2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Of-fenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) (in short the Act’-) and under Sec.3 thereof. There are, in all, four adverse cases shown against him. There is also one ground case, It would be better to state those adverse cases, the first of which is in Crime No.470 of 1995 under Sec.4(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 and the date of offence is 20.6.1996. The second ground case is Crime No.555 of 1995 and the date of offence is 17. 1995. The third ground case is Crime No.804 of 1995 and the date of offence is 210. 1995, while the fourth ground case is Crime No.40 of 1996, the date of offence being 11. 1996. Barring the first case all the three other cases are for selling liquor punishable under Sec.4(1)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937. In each of the first three cases, it seems that the petitioner had been fined Rs.200 while in the last case, he was fined Rs.250. In none of the cases, the offence is under Sec.4(1) (A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, meaning thereby there is no allegation that on an earlier occasion, the petitioner was found to be in possession and selling liquor, mixed with injurious substance or poison. The ground case suggested that on 21. 1997, the detenu/petitioner sold tumbler full of arrack to one Ashokkumar, son of Raman at 10.00 a.m. for Rs.5. After consumption, of arrack, the said Ashokkumar felt irritation in eyes, stomach and dryness of tongue and after some difficulty he could reach his house, where he was given first aid. He had a doubt that the petitioner/detenu would have mixed some poisonous substance in the arrack which he consumed, to give more intoxication and to make it more potent. He, therefore, reported the matter to the Inspector of Police, Gudiyattam Taluk at about 12 noon on 21. 1997 and gave a statement also, he was referred to the hospital. He had a doubt that the petitioner/detenu would have mixed some poisonous substance in the arrack which he consumed, to give more intoxication and to make it more potent. He, therefore, reported the matter to the Inspector of Police, Gudiyattam Taluk at about 12 noon on 21. 1997 and gave a statement also, he was referred to the hospital. The Inspector of Police, Gudiyattam taluk accompanied by two other witnesses had reached the spot at 2.00 p.m. on 23,1.1997 and arrested the petitioner/detenu, who was having a white colour plastic can of five litre capacity, in which he had four litres or arrack. On making chemical analysis, it was found that it contained atropine. The petitioner/detenu also gave a voluntary confession statement in which he has stated that he had been selling arrack for the past one year, that due to the strict enforcement of prohibition laws, he had decided to make quick money by selling arrack with more intoxication and therefore, he purchased one intoxicating medicine from an unknown person of Andhra Pradesh State, mixed it with the arrack and sold such mixture even from 21. 1997 evening till he was arrested. It is on the basis of these ground cases, the said impugned order of detention came to be passed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the impugned order of detention was totally unsustainable in law, in as much as the Detaining Authority had considered the nonexistent material and that therefore, the impugned detention order was passed without application of mind. Learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that the material which has been considered otherwise was a still born material and that there was absolutely no basis for taking any action much less a preventive action on the basis of those materials. 3. We do propose to examine both the points simultaneously. It will be seen that after setting out the facts for the ground case the following sentences appear in page No.5 last sub-paragraph of paragraph No.3. “.....Thiru Raja alias Ramamurthy was convicted in four cases for the offence under Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937. Despite the convictions Thiru. Raja alias Ramamurthy has not mended his ways. Further investigation reveals that Thiru Raja alias Ramamurthy in order to make quick money knowingly mixed a poisonous substance like atropine with the arrack sold by him. “.....Thiru Raja alias Ramamurthy was convicted in four cases for the offence under Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937. Despite the convictions Thiru. Raja alias Ramamurthy has not mended his ways. Further investigation reveals that Thiru Raja alias Ramamurthy in order to make quick money knowingly mixed a poisonous substance like atropine with the arrack sold by him. This will definitely cause widespread danger to human lives and public health..” The authority concerned, thereafter has proceeded to refer his satisfaction in the following words: “...All the above prove beyond doubt that the normal laws have not struck the desired restrainment of the activities of Thiru Raja alias Ramamurthy, which affect the public health and thereby the said activities of Thiru Raja alias Ramamurthy are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and health...” .4. It will be seen that there is nothing in the whole record to suggest that the petitioner knew that what he was mixing with arrack was atropine. Secondly, there is nothing in the whole record to suggest that what he had mixed with arrack was poisonous substance. With the aid of learned Additional Public Prosecutor we went through the whole record. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied on the following statement in Tamil: .The substance of which is that the accused in order to make quick money went to a bazar in V Kota at Andhra Pradesh State, bought some intoxicating mixture from an unknown person and mixed the same with the arrack and sold it. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner would suggest that it is nowhere admitted by the petitioner/detenu that what he had purchased was atropine or that what he had purchased and mixed with the arrack was poisonous substance. The sentence which we have quoted earlier from paragraph No.3 in the grounds, would clearly and categorically suggest that the Detaining Authority was of the opinion that the petitioner/detenu, with a view to make quick money knowingly mixed poisonous substance like atropine with the arrack and also sold it. Thus, the Detaining Authority was of the view that the petitioner/detenu knew that what he mixed with arrack was poisonous and hazardous to public in order to make quick money The whole record does not suggest anything to support this particular inference drawn by the Detaining Authority. Thus, the Detaining Authority was of the view that the petitioner/detenu knew that what he mixed with arrack was poisonous and hazardous to public in order to make quick money The whole record does not suggest anything to support this particular inference drawn by the Detaining Authority. There is nothing on record to suggest that at least any poisonous substance like atropine which he had purchased was seized from him. The whole thing depends upon the report of the chemical analyst and the Doctor’s certificate, which were issued after the examination of the complainant, Ashok Kumar. The seizure mahazar suggested that all that seized from the petitioner detenu was a can of five litre capacity, containing four litres of arrack, two glass tumblers and an amount of Rs.10. This would go to suggest that there was absolutely nothing on record for the Detaining Authority to draw an inference that the detenu/petitioner knew that he had mixed the arrack with some poisonous substance, but yet, an observation came to be made that the petitioner/detenu knowingly mixed poisonous substance like atropine with the arrack and sold it to make quick money. The instant case is clear example, where the Detaining Authority has acted on the non-existent materials even though the whole record does not suggest any such inference. Then, obviously, the inferences drawn by the Detaining Authority must be said to be baseless. .6. There is absolutely nothing in the impugned detention order that Detaining Authority was alive to the fact that the adverse cases, in which the petitioner-detenu was convicted, were old. It will also be seen that the first three adverse cases have taken place almost one and half years prior to the date of detention order and the last adverse took place in the month if January, 1996, i.e., exactly one year before the date of detention order, which is now under challenge. 7. Thus the adverse cases were stale cases. It was liable to be seen that the accused was not involved in any prohibition case for one full year prior to the institution of the ground case. 7. Thus the adverse cases were stale cases. It was liable to be seen that the accused was not involved in any prohibition case for one full year prior to the institution of the ground case. Even in those four adverse cases, there was nothing on record to suggest that the detenu/petitioner had sold liquor mixed with poisonous substance, affecting the public health, and therefore, it could not have been inferred by the Detaining Authority on that basis that the accused was likely to sell poisonous liquor and as such to act in a manner prejudicial to the public health and order. We have already shown that such inference was not possible on the basis of the last case. The grounds of detention suffer from all these lapses, with the result, it will be seen that the detention order suffers from not only non-application of mind, but also consideration of something which is extraneous and relying on the materials which are non-existent. 8. Thus, the petitioner must succeed, The impugned order of detention is quashed. The petitioner/detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless is required in connection with any other case.