The State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. Vs. Balasubramaniam
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 2001
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3137 of 2000)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10.3.2000 of the Madras High Court in H.C.P.No. 869 of 1999)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3137 of 2000)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10.3.2000 of the Madras High Court in H.C.P.No. 869 of 1999)
Petitioner: The State of Tamil Nadu and Anr.
Respondent: Balasubramaniam
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 2001
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3137 of 2000)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10.3.2000 of the Madras High Court in H.C.P.No. 869 of 1999)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3137 of 2000)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10.3.2000 of the Madras High Court in H.C.P.No. 869 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, Advocates with him for the Appellants.
Mr. R.S. Suri, Advocate (A.C) and Mr. V.K. Shailendra, Advocate for the Respondent.
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Preventive Detention
Detention orders – Setting aside of – Sponsoring authority rely-ing on six cases – Detaining authority referring to four cases – Documents of only one case supplied – Orders referring to four distinct places, but, in fact, of one offence at a section of a beat of reserve forest on a particular road and not four as held by High Court. Held that High Court has not applied its mind. Orders set aside. However, period of detention being over, detenue not to surrender. (Paras 6 to 8)
JUDGEMENT:
S.N. VARIAVA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard parties.
3. This appeal is against an order dated 10th March, 2000. By this order a detention order dated 7th April, 1999 has been quashed on the ground that in the affidavit of the sponsoring authority it has been mentioned that the detenue was involved in six cases and that in the detention order it has been stated that the detenue was involved in four occurrences in four different cases. It is held that the detenue had been given copies of documents in respect of one case only even though the detaining authority was bound to give copies in all the six cases. It is held that thus the detenue had been denied an effective opportun-ity to defend himself. On this ground the detention order was set aside.
4. It is correct that the detaining authority has to apply its mind before issuing a detention order. However, it is equally important that the court, hearing a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, also applies its mind before it quashes a detention order. Undoubtedly, in the affida-vit filed by the sponsoring authority reliance has been placed on six cases. However, the detaining authority has not placed reliance on six cases. This itself shows that the detaining authority had applied its mind and not gone just by what was stated by the sponsoring authority.
5. In para 2 of the impugned order it is stated as follows :
“2. In Sub-para 2 of paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention it is stated as follows :
“He has committed the abovementioned offences in Sobanapuram, Koppampatti, Manamalai, Anaikkal which are rich in sandalwood and other species and wild life,”
The detenue is stated to have been involved in four occurrences in four different cases. …..”
6. From the statement extracted above it has been concluded that there were four occurrences in four different places. However, the same detention order also sets out as follows:
“On 16.3.99 on a reliable information, the Forest Range Officer, Perambalur and in charge of Thuralyur Range, formed a special party led by him, proceeded at about 5 p.m. to conduct forest of-fences raid at Sobanapuram section, Koppampatti beat, Manamalai Reserve Forest Jee road.”
Thus it is clear that Sobanapuram is a section, Koppampatti is a beat, Manamalai is a reserve forest and Anaikkal is a name of the road. A careful reading shows the detention order does not refer to four occurrences in four different places, but is only men-tioning that an offence had taken place in Sobanapuram section, Koppampatti beat, Manamalai forest and at Anaikkal road. Had the High Court applied its mind properly, it would have realised that there were no four occurrences in four different places. Admit-tedly, the detenue has been given copy of the documents in the adverse case relied upon.
7. In our view, there has been total non-application of mind on the part of the High Court. The impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained and it is hereby set aside.
8. However, the detention order was of 1999. The same had been quashed by the High Court in March 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. 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 10th March, 2000. By this order a detention order dated 7th April, 1999 has been quashed on the ground that in the affidavit of the sponsoring authority it has been mentioned that the detenue was involved in six cases and that in the detention order it has been stated that the detenue was involved in four occurrences in four different cases. It is held that the detenue had been given copies of documents in respect of one case only even though the detaining authority was bound to give copies in all the six cases. It is held that thus the detenue had been denied an effective opportun-ity to defend himself. On this ground the detention order was set aside.
4. It is correct that the detaining authority has to apply its mind before issuing a detention order. However, it is equally important that the court, hearing a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, also applies its mind before it quashes a detention order. Undoubtedly, in the affida-vit filed by the sponsoring authority reliance has been placed on six cases. However, the detaining authority has not placed reliance on six cases. This itself shows that the detaining authority had applied its mind and not gone just by what was stated by the sponsoring authority.
5. In para 2 of the impugned order it is stated as follows :
“2. In Sub-para 2 of paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention it is stated as follows :
“He has committed the abovementioned offences in Sobanapuram, Koppampatti, Manamalai, Anaikkal which are rich in sandalwood and other species and wild life,”
The detenue is stated to have been involved in four occurrences in four different cases. …..”
6. From the statement extracted above it has been concluded that there were four occurrences in four different places. However, the same detention order also sets out as follows:
“On 16.3.99 on a reliable information, the Forest Range Officer, Perambalur and in charge of Thuralyur Range, formed a special party led by him, proceeded at about 5 p.m. to conduct forest of-fences raid at Sobanapuram section, Koppampatti beat, Manamalai Reserve Forest Jee road.”
Thus it is clear that Sobanapuram is a section, Koppampatti is a beat, Manamalai is a reserve forest and Anaikkal is a name of the road. A careful reading shows the detention order does not refer to four occurrences in four different places, but is only men-tioning that an offence had taken place in Sobanapuram section, Koppampatti beat, Manamalai forest and at Anaikkal road. Had the High Court applied its mind properly, it would have realised that there were no four occurrences in four different places. Admit-tedly, the detenue has been given copy of the documents in the adverse case relied upon.
7. In our view, there has been total non-application of mind on the part of the High Court. The impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained and it is hereby set aside.
8. However, the detention order was of 1999. The same had been quashed by the High Court in March 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. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
