The State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. Vs. Muniandi
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 268 of 2001
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3136 of 2000)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 12.4.2000 of the Madras High Court in HCP No. 1589 of 1999)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3136 of 2000)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 12.4.2000 of the Madras High Court in HCP No. 1589 of 1999)
Petitioner: The State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
Respondent: Muniandi
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 268 of 2001
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3136 of 2000)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 12.4.2000 of the Madras High Court in HCP No. 1589 of 1999)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3136 of 2000)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 12.4.2000 of the Madras High Court in HCP No. 1589 of 1999)
Judges: M. B. SHAH & S. N. VARIAVA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 03, 2001
Appearances:
Mr. R. Mohan, Senior Advocate, Mr. Jai Raj and Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Advocates with him for the Appellants.
Mr. R. Nedumaran, Mr. R.S. Lambat, Advocates for the Respondent.
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
PREVENTIVE DETENTION
Detention – Quashing of – High Court quashing order on grounds of non-application of mind – Recovery memo showing two sample bottles of 600 mls. but chemical examiner’s report showing 550 mls. of arrack – Perusal showing the two documents relating to two dif-ferent cases. Held that quashing cannot be sustained. However, since detention period already over, case not found fit to direct detenue to surrender. (Paras 4 to 6)
JUDGEMENT:
M.B. SHAH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard parties.
3. This appeal is against an order dated 12th April, 2000, by which a detention order dated 12th August, 1999 has been quashed. The detention order has been quashed on the ground that there has been non-application of mind on the part of the detaining author-ity. This conclusion was arrived at by holding that page 19 of the recovery mahazar shows two separate sample bottles each containing 600 mls. of arrack, whereas page 45 of the chemical examiner’s report shows 550 mls. of arrack.
4. We have been shown and looked at page 19 of the recovery mahazar and page 45 of the chemical examiner’s report. They both do not relate to the same case. Page 19 relates to this case but page 45 relates to some other case.
5. Mr. Lambat fairly admitted that the two do not relate to the same case. From the above, it is apparent that the High Court materially erred in not considering these facts before quashing the detention order. In this view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained and it is accordingly set aside.
6. However, the detention order was of 1999. The same had been quashed by the High Court in April 2000. The period of detention is over. In our view, this is not a case where the detenue should be made to surrender to undergo the remaining period of detention.
7. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard parties.
3. This appeal is against an order dated 12th April, 2000, by which a detention order dated 12th August, 1999 has been quashed. The detention order has been quashed on the ground that there has been non-application of mind on the part of the detaining author-ity. This conclusion was arrived at by holding that page 19 of the recovery mahazar shows two separate sample bottles each containing 600 mls. of arrack, whereas page 45 of the chemical examiner’s report shows 550 mls. of arrack.
4. We have been shown and looked at page 19 of the recovery mahazar and page 45 of the chemical examiner’s report. They both do not relate to the same case. Page 19 relates to this case but page 45 relates to some other case.
5. Mr. Lambat fairly admitted that the two do not relate to the same case. From the above, it is apparent that the High Court materially erred in not considering these facts before quashing the detention order. In this view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained and it is accordingly set aside.
6. However, the detention order was of 1999. The same had been quashed by the High Court in April 2000. The period of detention is over. In our view, this is not a case where the detenue should be made to surrender to undergo the remaining period of detention.
7. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
