STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. versus R. SASIKUMAR

Citation: [2008] 10 S.C.R. 599 · Decided: 09-07-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008) 10 S.C.R. 599 
- -\ 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. 
A 
( 
V. 
R. SASIKUMAR 
(Criminal Appeal No. 465 of 2001) 
JULY 9, 2008 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM AND AFTAB 
ALAM, JJ.] 
Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-
leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral c 
Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982; S.3(1): 
Order of detention - Challenge to, on ground of non-con-
r 
sideration of representation by Commissioner of Police - Al-
... 
lowed by High Court - Correctness of - Held: High Court or-
-;. 
der proceeds on presumption - Merely because two of the D 
addressees received the representation, it cannot be pre-
sumed that Director General of Police a/so received it - Rep-
resentation to Advisory Board could be made only after order 
of detention had been passed and served on deteni.J and not 
before as claimed by the mother of detenu - Hence, High Court E 
committed an error in quashing order of detention. 
Respondent was allegedly detained under s.3(1) of 
the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of 
Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, 
F 
Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982. 
Mother of the detenu challenged the order on the ground 
that before passing of the order of detention by the au-
thorities, a representation had been filed by her and a 
copy thereof was marked to the Director General of Po-
Uice and other authorities which was not considered by G 
he detaining authority. The High Court allowec= the peti-
f on quashing the order of the detention. Hence, the 
~resent appeal. 
599 
H 
600 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
Appellant-State contended that there was no ques-
B 
tion of any representation even before the order of deten-
tion was passed and there was no question of sending it 
to the Advisory Board. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The High Court's order proceeds on pre-
sumption. Merely because two of the addressees had re-
ceived the representations that in no way shows that the 
Director General of Police had received the representa-
C tion. [Para 4] [602-G] 
Sri Anand Hanumathsa Katar v. Additional District Mag-· 
istrate and Ors. 2006 (10) sec 725 - relied on. 
1.2 The question of making a representation to the 
0 Advisory Board arises only after the order of detention 
had been passed and served on the detenu. The High 
Court therefore, was clearly in error in quashing the or-
der of detention. [Para 5] [607-F,G] 
· 
1.3 Several incidents have been referred to in the 
E order of detention and the last of such instances was of 
22.6.1999. The detention order was passed on 9.7.1999 
and, therefore, it cannot be said to be relatable to stale 
incidents. The impugned order of the High Court is there-
fore quashed. Since the impugned order of the High Court 
F was passed more than 8 years back, considering the na-
ture of the order of detention which is essentially preven-
tive in character, it is appropriate for the State Govern-
ment and the detaining authority to consider whether 
there is any need to take the detenu back to detention for 
G serving the remainder of the period of detention which 
was indicated in the order of detention. However, this. 
Cour.t express no opinion on that aspect. [608-A,B,C] 
H 
State of TN. and Another v. A/agar 2006 (7) SCC 540 
relied on. 
+-
-
STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR. v. R. 
601 
SASIKUMAR [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
A 
No. 465 of 2001 
From the final Order dated 24.3.2000 of the High Court of 
Judicature at Madras in Habeas Corpus Petition No. 1262 of 
1999 
R. Sundaravaradan, VG. Pragasam, S.J. Aristotle and 
Prabu Ramasubramanian for the Appellants. 
K.K. Mani (A.C.) C.K.R. Lenin Sekar and Mayur R. Shah 
for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to 
B 
c 
the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court al-
lowing the Habeas Corpus Petition filed by the respondent ques-
tioning the order of detention i.e. Detention Order 519/BDFGIS/ D 
99 dated 9.7.1999 passed·by the Commissioner of Police, 
Chennai. 
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'detenu') 
E 
was detained under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of Tamil Nadu 
Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Of-
fenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders 
and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.