DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND ANR. versus R. KUMARAVEL

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 478 · Decided: 04-08-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND ANR. 
v. 
R. KUMARA VEL 
AUGUST 4, 1993 
[KULDIP SINGH AND P.B. SA WANT, JJ.] 
Preventive Detention : Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities 
of Boot-ieggers, Drug Offende1~, forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic 
Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982. 
C 
S.3--Detention Order-Relevant ·and vital materiaf--Consideration 
D 
of-Telegram-Authenticity of-Held, unless confi1med by subsequent signed 
document, contents of telegram have no authenticity and cannot be con-
sidered for assessing value of other authentic documents. 
Two persons, reported in the records of the district administration 
as habitual criminals, were detained under Tamil Nadu Prevention of 
Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, 
Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982, on the 
ground that they committed violent crimes against the police personnel in 
a crowded locality at 3.00 P.M. on 25.11.1991 and thereby acted in a 
E manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 
The detenues challenged their detention by way of habeas COl]JUS 
petitions before the High court on the ground that the orders of detention 
were vitiated for non-consideration of vital documents and non-application 
of mind inasmuch as the relevant and vital documents, namely, the 
F telegram sent on their behalf to various authorities complaining that they 
were taken in to police custody at 11.00 a.m. on 25.11.1991, were neither 
considered by the detaining authority nor copies thereof were supplied to 
the detenues. 
G 
The District Magistrate in his counter affidavit stated that the 
detenues were arrested only after the inbdent that took place at 3.00 p.m. 
on 25.11.1991 and the telegrams referred to had been booked late in the 
evening after the arrest had been made. 
The High Court allowed the petitions and quashed the orders of 
H detention holding that the telegrams were relevant and vital material which 
478 
..
DISTRICTMAGISTIZATE v. KUMARAVEL[KULDJPSINGH,J.] 
479 
should have been placed before the detaining authority and since the A 
grounds of detention did not disclose that the detaining authority had 
taken the telegrams into consideration the 
State tiled the appeals by special leave. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
detention was vitiated. The 
HELD : 1.1. The orders of detention could not be challenged on the 
ground that some material contained in a telegram simplicitor was not 
taken into consideration by the detaining authority. The High Court was, 
therefore, not justified in quashing the detention orders. [483-C-D] 
1.2. A telegram by itself is not an authentic document. It is like 
an unsigned/anonyinous communication. Contents of telegrams, unlesE 
confirmed by a subsequent signed applicatio'l, representation or an 
affidavit, have no authenticity at all and cannot be taken into considera-
tion for assessing the value of the other authentic documents on the 
B 
c 
record. [ 483-A) 
D 
1.3. There is nothing on the record to show that before the detention 
orders were passed any other communication was sent to the detaining 
authority or to the police, confirming the contents of the telegrams. The 
detention orders were passed by the detaining authority on the basis of the 
material placed before it. [482-G-H; 483•B) 
2. The grounds of detention me~tioned that the bail application filed 
on behalf of the detenues was disiuissed. The detaining authority had 
applied its mind to the bail application which contained the averment that 
the detenues were arrested at 11.30 a.m. on 25.11.1991. The .detaining 
authority had before it the case of the detenues that they were arrested at 
11.00 a.m./11.30 a.m. In this view of the matter the challenge based. on the 
telegrams loses it relevance. [482-E-F) 
E 
F 
3. Since the detenues were released as a result of the High Court 
judgn1ent, it would not be in the interest of justice - due to lapse of time G 
- to further execute the detention orders and to detain them for 
undergoing the remaining period of detention. It would, however, be open 
for the ·detaining 
authority to consider afresh-, keeping in vie\v the 
circumstances and their activities, the question of 4etention in accord-
ance with law. [483-D-E) 
H 
480 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP.1 S.C.R. 
A 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
516-517 of 1 '!93. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.2.1992 of the Madras High 
Court in Writ

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.