State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. Vs. E. Thalaimalai and Anr.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 160 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3603 of 1999)
Petitioner: State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
Respondent: E. Thalaimalai and Anr.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 160 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3603 of 1999)
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 02, 2000
Head Note:
PREVENTIVE DETENTION
National Security Act, 1980
Section 3(5) – Report of State Government reaching after 7 days – No dispute that dispatch was within precribed period. Held in view of State of Manipur v. Sanasam Ongbi (JT 1999 (7) SC 292) the quashing orders by High Court wrong. Order accordingly set aside and matter remanded for decision on all points. (Para 2)
Cases Reffered:
1. State of Manipur & Others v. Sanasam Ongbi and Another, (JT 1999 (7) SC 292)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The High Court quashed the order of detention only on the ground that the report of the State Government, as envisaged under Section 3(5) of the National Security Act, 1980 had reached the Central Government only after the period of 7 days. There is no dispute that report was despatched within the said period. If so, the decision of 3 Judge Bench of this Court will squarely apply (State of Manipur & Others v. Sanasam Ongbi and Another, (JT 1999 (7) SC 292 = (1999) 8 SCC 250). In the light of the said decision we set aside the impugned order and remit the case back to the High Court for deciding the Habeas Corpus Petition afresh on other remaining points in the petition. We permit the State authorities to take the 1st respondent back in custody during the pendency of the Habeas Corpus Petition before the High Court. The records will be immediately despatched to the High Court.
3. This appeal is accordingly disposed of.
1. Leave granted.
2. The High Court quashed the order of detention only on the ground that the report of the State Government, as envisaged under Section 3(5) of the National Security Act, 1980 had reached the Central Government only after the period of 7 days. There is no dispute that report was despatched within the said period. If so, the decision of 3 Judge Bench of this Court will squarely apply (State of Manipur & Others v. Sanasam Ongbi and Another, (JT 1999 (7) SC 292 = (1999) 8 SCC 250). In the light of the said decision we set aside the impugned order and remit the case back to the High Court for deciding the Habeas Corpus Petition afresh on other remaining points in the petition. We permit the State authorities to take the 1st respondent back in custody during the pendency of the Habeas Corpus Petition before the High Court. The records will be immediately despatched to the High Court.
3. This appeal is accordingly disposed of.
