JUDGMENT V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The detenue has suffered an order of detention, having been branded as "Bootlegger" under the order of the 2nd respondent dated 28.02.2013 made in B.D.F.G.I.S.S.V. No: 43 of 2013. 2. Petitioner herein is the daughter of the detenue. The detenue has come to the adverse notice on 4 earlier occasions viz. (1) in Cr. No: 501 of 2011 of PEW, Mamallapuram @ Thirukalukundram, for an offence registered under Section 4 (1) (aaa) of T.N.P. Act, 1937, (2) in Cr. No: 529 of 2011 of PEW, Mamallapuram @ Thirukalukundram, for an offence registered under Section 4 (1) (aaa) of T.N.P. Act, 1937, (3) in Cr. No: 61 of 2012 of PEW, Mamallapuram @ Thirukalukundram, for an offence registered under Section 4 (1) (aaa) of T.N.P. Act, 1937, r/w 6 and 11 of RS Rules, 2000 and (4) in Cr. No: 44 of 2013 of PEW Mamallapuram @ Thirukalukundram for an offence registered under Section 4 (1) (aaa) 4 (1-A) of T.N.P. Act, 1937, r/w 7 and 11 of RS Rules, 2000. The ground case alleged against the detenue is one registered on 09.02.2013 by PEW, Mamallapuram @ Thirukalukundram in Cr. No: 45 of 2013 for an offences under Section 4 (1) (i), 4 (1) (aaa), 4 (1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act r/w 7 & 11 of RS Rules, 2000. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 4. Though several other grounds are raised, the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly focussed his argument on the ground of delay in sending the samples for chemical analysis. According to him, though the sample of arrack was drawn from the seized material on 09.02.2013 when the detenue was arrested, it was sent for chemical examination only on 13.02.2013 and on this ground, the order of detention is liable to quashed. 5. From a perusal of the booklet produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it is seen that though the samples were drawn from the seized material on 09.02.2013 by the investigating officer, they were sent for Chemical examination only on 13.02.2013. Thus, there is delay in sending the samples for chemical analysis due to which the sample will lose its character. No satisfactory explanation is also forthcoming from the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the said delay. 6. Thus, there is delay in sending the samples for chemical analysis due to which the sample will lose its character. No satisfactory explanation is also forthcoming from the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the said delay. 6. Therefore, on this ground, the order of detention is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenue namely, Valli W/o.Siva, made in B.D.G.F.I.S.S.V. No: 43 of 2013 dated 28.02.2013 is quashed and the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The above named detenue is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless her custody is required in connection with any other case.