CHANDRAKANT BADDI versus ADDL. DIST. MAGISTRATE & POLICE COMMNR. & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 7 S.C.R. 163 · Decided: 29-04-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE, H.S. BEDI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

"'[2008] 6 $.C.R. 163 
CHANDRAKANT BADDI 
v. 
ADDL. DIST. MAGISTRATE & POLICE COMMNR. & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 756 of 2008) 
APRIL 29, 2008 
(TARUN CHATTERJEE & HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.) 
Preventive Detention: 
Order of detention - Lapse of period of detention - Effect 
A 
B 
of - Detenu remaining outside custody due to order of Court C 
which was later set aside - Meanwhile period of detention 
lapsed - However, Court while setting aside earlier order, 
directing detenu to be sent back to jail for the remaining period 
- HELD: When an order of a Court quashing the detention is 
set aside, remittance of the detenu to jail to serve out the D 
balance period of detention does not automatically follow and 
it is open to the detaining authority to go into various factors 
delineated in the judgments* so as to find out whether it would 
be appropriate to send the detenu back to serve out the 
. balance "period of detention - In this view of the matter, the 
E' 
detaining authority must be permitted to re-examine the matter 
and to take a decision thereon within a period of 3 months 
from the date of supply of the copy of the instant order -
Kamataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bottleggers 
Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic F 
Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act 1985 - s.3(2). 
*Sunil Fulchand Shah vs. Union of India & Ors. (2000) 3 
SCC 409; and State of TN. & Anr. Vs. A/agar (2006) 7 SCC 
540 - relied on. 
G 
TOevki vs. Govt of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (1990) 2 SCC 
456 - referred to. 
Commissioner of Police & Anr. vs. Gurbux Anandram 
Bhiryani (1988) Supp. sec 568 - stands overruled. 
163 
H 
164 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2008] 7 S.C.R. 
( 
A 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal 
Appeal No. 756 of 2008. 
Iii> 
B 
From the Order dated 30.3.2007 of the High Court of 
Karnataka at Bangalore in R.P. No. 456/2006 in W.P. No. 156/ 
2005. 
WITH 
Criminal Appeal No. 757 of 2008. 
K.K. Mani, C.K.R. Lenin Sekar and Mayur R. Shah for the 
c Appellant. 
Sanjay R. Hegde, A Rohan Singh and Vikrant Yadav for 
the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
D 
1. Leave granted. 
2. The appellant herein was detained for a period of one 
year under an order dated 91h December 2005 passed under 
Section 3 (2) of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous 
E Activities of Bottleggers Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, 
Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act 1985. This 
order was challenged in the Karnataka High Court on 16th 
December 2005 by way of a writ of habeas corpus. By its order 
dated 1st September 2006, the Division Bench relying on 
Commissioner of Police & Anr vs. Gurbux Anandram Bhiryani 
F 
(1988) Supp. SCC 568 quashed the order of detention and 
directed that the appellant be set at liberty. The State of 
Karnataka thereafter moved an application for review of the 
order dated 1st September 2006 on the plea that the aforesaid 
judgment had been over-ruled by a later judgment of this Court 
G in T Devki vs. Govt of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (1990) 2 SCC 456. 
The Hon'ble Judges constituting the Bench observed that they 
had "spent sleepless" nights on account of an error committed 
by them in the light that the counsel had not brought the 
subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court to notice and that 
H their judicial conscience had been pricked for having passed 
CHANDRAKANT BADDI v. ADDL. DIST MAGISTRATE 
165 
& POLICE COMMNR. & ORS. 
an order relying on a judgment which had been over-ruled. The A 
Bench thus allowed the Review Petition on 30th March 2007 
and re-called the order dated 1st September 2006. The Bench 
also noticed that the period of detention had since expired on 
3th December 2006 and accordingly observed: 
"In these circumstances, despite the opposition of Sri 
B 
Javali, learned counsel and despite his contention that his 
client cannot be sent back to jail, in the light of a detention 
order having come to an end in the case on hand, we are 
not prepared to accept his submissions. A beneficiary of 
a defective order cannot be permitted to have the benefit C 
and that benefit has to be recalled in the light of recalling 
benefit order. In these circumstances, we deem it proper 
to direct the police to take him to custody for the remaining 
period." 
3. It is against this order that the present appeals have D 
been filed. While issuing notice on 30th April 2007 the operation 
of the impugned order had been stayed. In the meanwhile, the 
learned counsel for the responden
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.