Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the daughter of the detenuee. The detenuee has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the second respondent passed in C3.D.O.No.100/2013, dated 05.11.2013. 2. The detenue came to adverse notice in the following cases: Sl. No. Police Station & Crime No. Section of Law 1 Thimiri Police Station Crime No.37/2012 4(1)a TNP Act, 1937 2 Thimiri Police Station Crime No.147/2012 4(1)a TNP Act, 1937 3 Thimiri Police Station Crime No.216/2012 4(1)a, 4(1-A)ii TNP Act, 1937 @ 4(1)a TNP Act, 1937 4 Thimiri Police Station Crime No.24/2013 4(1)a, 4(1-A)ii TNP Act, 1937 @ 4(1)a TNP Act, 1937 5 Thimiri Police Station Crime No.251/2013 4(1)(a)(aa), 4(1-A)ii TNP Act, 1937 @ 4(1(a)(aa) TNP Act, 1937 The ground case alleged against the detenue is one registered on 06.10.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Ranipet Prohibition Enforcement Wing in Crime No.317/2013 for offences under Sections 4(1)(aaa), 4(1-A)ii of TNP Act, 1937. 3. Though learned counsel for the petitioner raised several other grounds to assail the impugned order of detention, he mainly focussed his arguments on the ground of delay in sending the samples to the laboratory for chemical analysis. According to him, the seizure was made on 06.10.2013 and sample of the same was deposited under Form No.95 on the same day before the concerned Court. Thereafter it was sent for chemical examination only on 08.10.2013. However, there is no reason forthcoming as to why there is unexplained delay in sending the samples for chemical analysis and due to the delay, the chemical 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 produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it is seen that though the samples were drawn from the seized material on 06.10.2013 by the Investigating Officer and sent to the Court on the same day, they were sent for Chemical examination only on 08.10.2013. Thus, there is unexplained delay in sending the samples for chemical analysis and no satisfactory explanation is also forthcoming from the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the said delay. 6. Thus, there is unexplained delay in sending the samples for chemical analysis and no satisfactory explanation is also forthcoming from the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the said delay. 6. A Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in a similar case in Sundararajan vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary to Government & another (H.C.P.No.320 of 2009), decided on 23.03.2009, was 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 detenue 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 detenu. 5. As seen from the records, it is clear that the sample of arrack, which was seized on 15.09.2008 from the detenu, was sent for chemical analysis only on 17.09.2008 and hence, there is an abnormal delay in sending the sample for chemical 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 Corpus Petition 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 decision 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 order of detention is liable to be set aside. 8. In view of the above, the impugned detention order dated 05.11.2013 passed by the 2nd respondent videC3/D.O.No.100/2013 detaining the detenue namely,Pachaiyammal, 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. 9. 8. In view of the above, the impugned detention order dated 05.11.2013 passed by the 2nd respondent videC3/D.O.No.100/2013 detaining the detenue namely,Pachaiyammal, 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. 9. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the authorities concerned to effectively contest the matter before the Regular Court, uninfluenced by the above order. It is also made clear that this order shall not confer any right or advantage whatsoever to the detenue to claim anything before the Regular Court.