THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. versus BALASUBRAMANIAM

Citation: [2001] 1 S.C.R. 1142 · Decided: 20-02-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. 
II. 
BALASUBRAMANIAM 
FEBRUARY 20, 2001 
B 
[S.N. VARIAVA AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] 
Criminal law 
Constillllion of India-Articles 226 & 21 Preventive Detention-High 
C Court quashing detention of Respondent-On ground of non-supply of 
documents relating to four occurrences-Held, on facts, only one incident 
mentioned in detention order-Detention valid-Further held, in the 
circumstances detenu need not undergo remaining period of sentence. 
The Appellant passed detention order against Respondent which was 
D quashed by the High Court in a Habeas Corpus Petition on the ground that in 
the Affidavit of the Sponsoring Authority it has been mentioned that the 
Detenu was involved in six cases and that in t!t_e detention Order it has been 
stated that Detenu was involved in four occurrences in four different cases, 
that the Detenu had been given copies of documents in respect of one case 
E only even though the Detaining Aut.ltority was bound to give copies in all the 
six cases and that the Detenu had been denied an effective opportunity to 
defend himself. Hence this appeal by the State. 
Disposing of the Appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD : I. A careful reading of the Detention Order shows that it does 
not refer to four occurrences in four different places, but is only mentioning 
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. Admittedly, the Detenu has been given copy of the documents 
G in the adverse case relied upon. There has been total non-application of mind 
on the part of the High Court.11144-D-EI 
2. The Detention Order was of 1999. The same had been quashed by the 
High Court in March 2000. The period of detention is over. This is not a case 
H where the Detenu should be made to surrender to undergo the remaining 
1142 
-·y 
t 
.. 
STATEOFTAMILNADUv. BALASUBRAMANIAM[S.N. VARIAVA,J.] 
J )43 
period of detention; [ 1144-F[ 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 206 of2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.3.2000 of the Madras High Court 
A 
in H.C.P. No. 869of1999. 
B 
R. Mohan and V.G. Pragas11m for the Appellant. 
R.S. Suri, (A.C.) and V.K. Shailendra for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
c 
S. N. V ARIA VA, J. Leave granted. 
Heard parties. 
This Appeal is against an Order dated I 0th March, 2000. By this Order D 
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· 
Detenu was involved in six cases and that in the detention Order it has been 
stated that the Detenu was involved in four occurrences in four different 
cases. It is held that the Detenu had been given copies of documents in 
respect of one case only even though the Detaining Authority was bound to E 
give copies in all the six cases. It is held that thus the Detenu had been denied 
an effective opportunity to defend himself. On this ground the detention 
Order was set aside. 
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, F 
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 Affidavit 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 G 
not gone just by what was stated by the Sponsoring Authority . 
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: 
H 
A 
B 
1144 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[200 I) I S.C.R. 
"He has committed the above mentioned offences in Sobanapuram, 
Koppampatti, Manamalai, Anaikkal which are rich in sandalwood and 
other species and wild life." 
The detenu is stated to have been involved in four occurrences in 
four different cases .............. " 
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, 1

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