JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Leave granted. 3. The appellant herein is a friend of the detenu by name Kaliamoorthy who is detained under the provisions of Section 3(1) of the 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). 4. One of the grounds which satisfied the detaining authority to detain the appellant was that when he was arrested by the police, certain quantity of illicit arrack in a mud pot was being brewed on the river side and the samples of which were taken by the police officer concerned at the time of the arrest of the appellant. While doing so the rest of the arrack in the mud pot was destroyed and separate mahazars was drawn to evidence the factum taking samples as well as the destruction of the remaining arrack, the detaining authority in the order of detention specifically referred to this factum of destruction by observing "the remaining arrack along with the mud pot was destroyed on the spot." It is the case of the State Government itself that this copy of the mahzar evidencing the destruction of the arrack was placed for consideration before the detaining authority and as noted above has relied on this fact. It is an admitted fact that the appellant had sought for this copy of this mahazar from the detaining authority and admittedly the said copy was not provided to the appellant. 5. The said detention of the detenu was challenged by the appellant herein before the High Court of Judicature of Madras wherein a specific ground was taken that the detenu having not been supplied with the material documents, one of them being the destruction mazahar he had no opportunity to represent to the detaining authority in his defence. The Court, however, rejected this contention by observing that non-supply of the mahazar of destruction was not a material document therefore, it rejected his contention. 6. In this appeal the very same argument is addressed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The Court, however, rejected this contention by observing that non-supply of the mahazar of destruction was not a material document therefore, it rejected his contention. 6. In this appeal the very same argument is addressed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Taking into the facts of this case, inasmuch as it is the case of the police which arrested the detenu that when he was arrested from the river bank he was brewing illicit irrack hence he was indulging in the activity of manufacture and sale of illicit liquor. The factum of the brewing of liquor business a relevant fact which is sought to be established by the sponsoring authority by the production of destruction mahazar, a copy of which was placed before the detaining authority who in turn has relied upon the same, but copy of which is not given to detenu in spite of demand, this denial on the facts of this case we think has caused prejudice to the detenu inasmuch as he could not effectively represent against this fact. Therefore, we think that on the facts of this case, since reliance is placed on this mahazar for destruction by the detaining authority and a copy of the same having not been given to the detenu, this appeal is liable to succeed. 7. For the foregoing reasons this appeal is allowed. The order of detention is quashed. Appeal allowed.