The State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. Vs. Baskar
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 207 of 2001
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3144 of 2000)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 7.4.2000 of the Madras High Court in H.C.P. No. 1404 of 1999)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3144 of 2000)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 7.4.2000 of the Madras High Court in H.C.P. No. 1404 of 1999)
Petitioner: The State of Tamil Nadu and Anr.
Respondent: Baskar
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 207 of 2001
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3144 of 2000)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 7.4.2000 of the Madras High Court in H.C.P. No. 1404 of 1999)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3144 of 2000)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 7.4.2000 of the Madras High Court in H.C.P. No. 1404 of 1999)
Judges: M.B. SHAH & S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 20, 2001
Appearances:
Mr. R. Mohan, Senior Advocate, Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Advocate with him for the Appellants.
Mr. Vijay Panjawani, Advocate (A.C.) for the Respondent.
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
(PREVENTIVE DETENTION)
(PREVENTIVE DETENTION)
Detention order – Setting aside of – Grounds of vagueness cited – Orders, however, found not vague. Held that order could not be set aside. Since detention orders were set aside by High Court in April 2000, period of detention being over, detenue need not sur-render. (Paras 5 to 7)
JUDGEMENT:
S.N. VARIAVA, J.
1. Leave granted .
2. Heard parties.
3. This appeal is against an order dated 7th April 2000. By this order a detention order dated 2nd August, 1999 has been quashed on the ground that the detention order is vitiated on ground of vagueness as the exact overt act attributable to each one of the accused has not been set out.
4. We have read the detention order. The detention order set out as follows :
“On 24-6-99 at about 1100 hours TVI Thiruvengadam and his asso-ciate Baskar @ Reddy Basker, Parthasarathy and Kandan got down from a Tata Sumo car bearing registration no. TN-01-P 2525. Thiru Palani noticed them armed with knife. Thiru Thiruvengadam noticing Thiru Palani, came near Thiru Palani and by uttering “when we cut your brother Ravichandran you went and gave complaint to the police. Now I am cutting you. Let me see who will give complaint for this. You die with this cut” terrorised him and rushed to cut him over his head. Thiru Palani warded off the attack with his right hand. However the knife fell over his right forearm and caused bleeding injury to him. Thiru Palani raised hue and cry. A huge crowd gathered at the spot. Thiru Thiruvengadam and others by brandishing the knife terrorised everyone at the spot by uttering “if anybody comes near we will remove the leg , hand”, and also picked up sodawater bottles from the nearby shop of Thiru Srinivasan and hurled the same against the public. The bottles fell on the roadside and broke into pieces and the broken pieces scattered all over the roadside. The public who were proceeding in their vehicles noticed and turned back their vehi-cles in the same direction from which they came. The nearby shop owners noticed and closed down their shops and suspended their business. The normalcy in that area was totally dislocated. Thus they have created terror and panic at the spot.
5. In our view, there is no vagueness in the said detention order. The detention order clearly sets out that the respondent along with Thiruvengadam, Parthasarathy and Kandan got down from the Tata Sumo car and that all of them were armed with knives. The detention order clearly sets out that the complainant was threatened. The detention order sets out that these persons terrorised everyone at the spot and one of them picked up a soda bottle from the nearby shop and hurled the same against the public. The detention order sets out that the normalcy of the area was com-pletely dislocated as terror and panic had been created at the spot.
6. We fail to see what further and better particulars could have been given in the detention order . In the impugned order the learned Judge has failed to clarify what further and better par-ticulars could have been given in the detention order. In our view, the impugned order cannot be sustained and it is according-ly set aside.
7. 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 deten-tion.
8. 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 7th April 2000. By this order a detention order dated 2nd August, 1999 has been quashed on the ground that the detention order is vitiated on ground of vagueness as the exact overt act attributable to each one of the accused has not been set out.
4. We have read the detention order. The detention order set out as follows :
“On 24-6-99 at about 1100 hours TVI Thiruvengadam and his asso-ciate Baskar @ Reddy Basker, Parthasarathy and Kandan got down from a Tata Sumo car bearing registration no. TN-01-P 2525. Thiru Palani noticed them armed with knife. Thiru Thiruvengadam noticing Thiru Palani, came near Thiru Palani and by uttering “when we cut your brother Ravichandran you went and gave complaint to the police. Now I am cutting you. Let me see who will give complaint for this. You die with this cut” terrorised him and rushed to cut him over his head. Thiru Palani warded off the attack with his right hand. However the knife fell over his right forearm and caused bleeding injury to him. Thiru Palani raised hue and cry. A huge crowd gathered at the spot. Thiru Thiruvengadam and others by brandishing the knife terrorised everyone at the spot by uttering “if anybody comes near we will remove the leg , hand”, and also picked up sodawater bottles from the nearby shop of Thiru Srinivasan and hurled the same against the public. The bottles fell on the roadside and broke into pieces and the broken pieces scattered all over the roadside. The public who were proceeding in their vehicles noticed and turned back their vehi-cles in the same direction from which they came. The nearby shop owners noticed and closed down their shops and suspended their business. The normalcy in that area was totally dislocated. Thus they have created terror and panic at the spot.
5. In our view, there is no vagueness in the said detention order. The detention order clearly sets out that the respondent along with Thiruvengadam, Parthasarathy and Kandan got down from the Tata Sumo car and that all of them were armed with knives. The detention order clearly sets out that the complainant was threatened. The detention order sets out that these persons terrorised everyone at the spot and one of them picked up a soda bottle from the nearby shop and hurled the same against the public. The detention order sets out that the normalcy of the area was com-pletely dislocated as terror and panic had been created at the spot.
6. We fail to see what further and better particulars could have been given in the detention order . In the impugned order the learned Judge has failed to clarify what further and better par-ticulars could have been given in the detention order. In our view, the impugned order cannot be sustained and it is according-ly set aside.
7. 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 deten-tion.
8. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
