Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's husband, the detenu Rajendran @ Dells Rajendran, son of Somu, aged 39 years before this Court and now confined in Central Prison, Trichy and set him at liberty and to call for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed in C.O.C. No.6/2006 dated 02.05.2006 passed by the second respondent and set aside the same.) P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu by name Rajendran @ Dells Rajendran, who is detained as a ''Bootlegger" as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), by the impugned detention order dated 02.05.2006, challenges the same in this Petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 3. At the foremost, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the detenu was arrested and the contraband was seized even on 09.04.2006, the same was sent to the Court viz., Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthuraipoondi, only on 12.04.2006. According to him, in view of the fact that the distance between the place of seizure and the Court is only 6 k.m., first of all, there is no need to take three days time for forwarding the same to the Court concerned and secondly, because of the time factor, there is likelihood of every possibility of tampering the contraband. On this ground, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for intervention in the order of the detaining authority. 4. With regard to the said contention, we verified the records which show that the detenu was arrested on 09.04.2006 and the I.D. arrack was also seized in two bottles on the same day. Though the learned Additional Public prosecutor has pointed out that the contraband was received by the Court on 09.04.2006, the endorsement by the Judicial Magistrate shows that the two bottles were checked and received only on 12.04.2006. It is clear from the endorsement made on the backside of the petition, which is available at pages 36 and 37 of the paper book supplied to the detenu. It is clear from the endorsement made on the backside of the petition, which is available at pages 36 and 37 of the paper book supplied to the detenu. In addition to the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice that the statement made by one Ramesh, Head Constable, Alivalam Police Station, which is available at page 64 shows that the contraband was entrusted to the Court on 12.04.2006. In the statement made by him under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C., the said Head Constable has stated as follows: The above statement makes it clear that the seized contraband was handed over to the Court only on 12.04.2006. In the absence of proper explanation, we are of the view that there is no need to take three days time for sending the contraband to the Court, when admittedly the distance between the place of seizure and the Court is only 6 k.m. In such circumstances and in the absence of proper explanation, we hold that the detention order is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same is quashed. 5. The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in some other case or cause.