THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. versus BASKAR

Citation: [2001] 1 S.C.R. 1139 · Decided: 20-02-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
BA SKAR 
FEBRUARY 20, 2001 
[S.N. VARIAVA AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] 
B 
Criminal law 
Preventive Detention-Constitution of India-Articles 21 & 226-Writ 
of Habeas Corpus-High Court quashing order of detention on ground of C 
vagueness-Held, on facts, detention order clearly sets out the sequence of 
events-Detention upheld-Further held, period of detention being over, 
deten11 need not surrender. 
The Appellant filed the appeal against the quashing of a detention order 
of Respondent by the High Court in a Habeas Corpus Petition on the ground D 
that the Detention Order is vitiated on ground of vagueness as the-exact overt 
act attributable to each one of the accused has not been set out. 
Disposing of the Appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. There is no vagueness in the Detention Order. The Detention 
Order clearly sets out that the Respondent along with T, P and K got down 
from the Tata Sumo car and that all of them were armed with knives. The 
Detention Order clearly sets out that the complainant was threatened. The 
E 
.,. 
Detention Order sets out that these persons terrorised everyone at the spot 
and one of them picked up a soda bottle from the nearby shop and hurled- the F 
same against the public. The Detention Order set out that the normalcy of 
the area was completely dislocated as terror and panic had been created at 
the spot. (1141-CI 
2. The High Court has failed to clarify what further and better 
particulars could have been given in the Detention Order. The impugned G 
Order cannot be sustained and it is set aside. (I 141-DI 
3. The Detention Order is of 1999. The same had been quashed by the 
High Court in April 2000. The period of detentio.n is over. Hence, this is not 
a case where the· Detenu should be made to s\irrender to undergo the H 
1139 
1140 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2001] l S.C.R 
A remaiiiing period ofdetention.11141-EI 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Criminal Appeal 
No. 207 of 200 I. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.4.2000 of the Madras High Court 
B in H.C.P. No. 1404of1999. 
R. Mohan and V.G. Pragasam for the Appellants. 
Vijay Panjwani, (A.C.) for the Respondent. 
C 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S. N. VARIAVA, J. Leave granted. 
Heard parties. 
D 
This Appeal is against an Order dated 7th April, 2000. By this Order a 
Detention Order dated 2nd August, 1999 has been quashed on the ground 
that the Detention Order is vitiated on ground of vagueness as the exact overt 
act attributable to each one of the accused has not been set out. 
We have read the Detention Order. The Detention Order sets out as 
i 
E follows: 
F 
G 
H 
"On 24-6-99 at about 1100 hours Tvi. Thiruvengadarn and his associate 
Baskar @ Reddy Baskar, Parthasarathy and Kandan got down from a 
Tata Sumo car bearing Registration No. TN-01-P 2525. Thiru Palani 
noticed them armed with knife. Thiru Thiruvengadam noticing Thiru 
Palani came near Thiru Palani and by uttering "when we cut your 
brother Ravichandran you went and gave complaint to the police. 
Now I am cutting you. Let me see who will give complaint for this. 
You die with this cut", terrorised him and rushed to cut him over his 
head. Thiru Palani warded off the attack with his right hand. However, 
the knife fell over his right fore-11rm and caused bleeding injury to him. 
Thiru Palani raised hue and cry. A huge crowd gathered at the spot. 
Thiru Thiruvengadam and others by brandishing the knife terrorised 
everyone at the spot .by uttering "if any body comes near we will 
remove the leg, hand", and also picked up soda water bottles from the 
nearby shop of Thiru Srinivasan and hurled the same against the 
public. The bottles fell on the road side broken into pieces and the 
,_
STATEOFTAMILNADUv. BASKAR[S.N. VARIAVA,J.] 
1141 
broken pieces scattered all over the roadside. The public who were A 
proceeding in their vehicles noticed and turned back their vehicles in 
the same direction from which they came. The nearby shop-owners 
noticed and closed down their shops and suspended their business. 
The normalcy in that area was totally dislocated. Thus they have 
created terror and panic at the spot." 
In our view, there is no vagueness in the said Detention Order. The 
Detention Order clearly sets ou~ that the Respondent along with 
Thiruvengadam, Parthasarathy and Kandan got down from the Tata Sumo car 
and that all of them were armed with knives. The Detention Order clearly sets 
B 
out that the complainant was t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.