Mr. V. DHANAPALAN, J. ORDER 1. The petitioner, who is the father of detenu, namely, Silambarasan, S/o.Murugesan @ Gundu Murugesan, has challenged the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent made in C.M.P. No. 24/BLA/C2/2013 dated 07.10.2013 branding the detenue as a “Bootlegger” under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases: Sr. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. Attur P.E.W., Crime No.33 of 2012 Sections 4(1)(aa) & (4-A) of TNP Act 2. Attur P.E.W., Crime No.608 of 2012 Sections 4(1)(aaa) & (4-A) of TNP Act 3. Attur P.E.W., Crime No.194 of 2013 Sections 4(1)(aaa) & 4(1-A) of TNP Act The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 06.09.2013 by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Steelplant P.E.W. in Crime No.431 of 2013 for the offence under Sections 4(1)(aaa) and 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the impugned order of detention, he has mainly focussed his argument on the ground of delay in sending the samples to the Lab for chemical analysis. According to him, though the seizure was made on 06.09.2013, the same was sent for chemical analysis only on 16.09.2013. However, there is no reason forthcoming as to why there is unexplained delay in sending the samples for analysis and due to the delay, the same will definitely lose its real character. Therefore, on this ground alone, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged this Court to quash the order of detention. 4. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents also. 5. From a perusal of the booklet at Page No.41, it is seen that though the samples were drawn from the seized material on 06.09.2013 by the investigating officer, they were sent for chemical analysis only on 16.09.2013. Thus, it is clear that there is unexplained delay in depositing the samples with the Lab for analysis and no satisfactory explanation is also forthcoming from the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the said delay. 6. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in a similar case, viz., Sundararajan v.State of Tamil Nadu, rep. Thus, it is clear that there is unexplained delay in depositing the samples with the Lab for analysis and no satisfactory explanation is also forthcoming from the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the said delay. 6. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in a similar case, viz., Sundararajan v.State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government and Another (H.C.P. No. 320 of 2009), decided on 23.03.2009, has been pleased to lay down as under: “4. Apart from the other grounds raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has stressed the ground of delay in sending the sample, which was recovered from the detenu, to the chemical analyst for analysis. According to the learned counsel, though the sample of arrack was collected from the detenu on 15.09.2008, it was sent to the Assistant Director and Government Assistant Chemical Examiner, Regional Forensic Sciences Laboratory, for analysis only on 17.09.2008 and hence, there is an abnormal delay, which vitiates the order of detention passed against the deteny. 5. As seen from the records, it is clear that the sample of arrack, which was seized on 15.09.2008 from the detenue, was sent for chemical analysis only on 17.09.2008 and hence, there is an abnormal delay in sending the sample for chemial analysis, due to which, the sample will lose its character and there is no satisfactory explanation from the Public Prosecutor for the said delay. 6. In view of the reason stated above, the order of Detention passed against the detenu is liable to be set aside and it is, accordingly, set aside. The Habeas CorpusPetition is allowed. The detenu, Chinnasamy, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other cases.” 7. In the light of the above judgment and also taking into consideration the unexplained delay in sending the samples for chemical analysis, which will no doubt result in losing of its real character, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Silambarasan, S/o.Murugesan @ Gundu Murugesan, made in C.M.P. No. 24/BLA/C2/2013 dated 07.10.2013 is quashed and theHabeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained at the Central Prison, Salem, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. Petition allowed.