http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 206  of  2001

PETITIONER: THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: BALASUBRAMANIAM

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       20/02/2001

BENCH: M.B. Shah & S.N. Variava.

JUDGMENT:

S. N. VARIAVA, J. L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J Leave granted.

   Heard parties.

   This  Appeal is against an Order dated 10th March, 2000. By  this  Order 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 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, 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 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:  "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 occurrence in four different cases.  ."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

   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,  Perambalur and incharge of Thuraiyur Range, formed a  special  party  led by him, proceeded at about  5  PM  to conduct  forest  offences  raid   at  Sobanapuram   Section, Koppampatti beat, Manmalai Reserve Forest Jee road."

   Thus  it  is  clear  that   Sobanapuram  is  a  Section, Koppampatti  is  a  beat, Manmalai is a reserve  forest  and Anaikkal is a name of the road.  A careful reading shows the Detention  Order 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 in the adverse case relied upon.

   In  our  view, there has been total  non-application  of mind  on the part of the High Court.  The impugned Order  of the  High  Court  cannot be sustained and it is  hereby  set aside.

   However,  the Detention Order was of 1999.  The same had been quashed by the High Court in March 2000.  The period of detention  is  over.  In our view, this is not a case  where the  Detenu  should  be  made to surrender  to  undergo  the remaining period of detention.

   The  Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.  There will be no Order as to costs.

..J. (M. B. SHAH)

..J. (S. N. VARIAVA)

February 20, 2001.