ORDER

Venkataswami, J. - The petitioner, who has been detained as a bootlegger by the impugned detention order dt. 22.9.1992, has filed this petition, challenging the said detention order.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned detention order cannot be Sustained in view of the obvious discrepancy unnoticed by the detaining authority.

3. In the documents supplied to the detenu by way of paper book, pages 65, 66 and 67 consistently go to show that sample was taken in one bottle, while the documents in other pages go to show that samples were taken in two bottles. Further, learned counsel points out that the detention order proceeds as if two bottles were taken and those samples were sent for chemical analysis. Learned counsel for the petitioner further points out that if both the bottles were sent for analysis without keeping one with the Court, that would vitiate the order of detention in view of our order in Seetha and others v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.1. Even otherwise, if sample is taken

1. W.P, No. 545192 decided on 25.5.1993. in one bottle, and that is sent for analysis, that would also vitiate the detention order in the light of our decision in W.P. No. 545 of 1992 etc. batch (cited supra). Therefore, according to the learned counsel, in view of the discrepancy mentioned above, the detention order cannot be sustained.

4. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, though accepted the existence of the discrepancy and the ucertainty of the samples taken, contends that will not vitiate the order of detention.

5. We are unable to agree with the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. We are inclined to hold that the staining Authority has not applied his mind properly before passing the impugned order of detention. On that ground, the detention order is quashed. The petition is allowed: The respondents are directed to release the detenu forthwith from custody, unless he is liable to be detained in custody for some other cause.

Petition allowed.