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

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 268  of  2001

PETITIONER: THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MUNIANDI

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       02/03/2001

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

JUDGMENT:

S. N. VARIAVA, J.

Leave granted.

Heard parties. L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

   This  Appeal is against an Order dated 12th April, 2000, by  which a Detention Order dated 12th August, 1999 has been quashed.  The Detention Order has been quashed on the ground that  there has been non-application of mind on the part  of the  Detaining Authority.  This conclusion was arrived at by holding  that  page  19 of the Recovery  Mahazar  shows  two separate sample bottles each containing 600 mls.  of arrack, whereas  page 45 of the Chemical Examiner’s Report shows 550 mls.   of arrack.  We have been shown and looked at page  19 of  the  Recovery  Mahazar  and  page  45  of  the  Chemical Examiner’s  Report.   They  do not both relate to  the  same case.   Page 19 relates to this case but page 45 relates  to some  other case.  Mr.  Lambat fairly admitted that the  two do  not  relate  to the same case.  From the  above,  it  is apparent  that  the  High  Court  materially  erred  in  not considering these facts before quashing the detention order. In  this  view of the matter, the impugned Order  cannot  be sustained and it is accordingly set aside.

   However,  the Detention Order was of 1999.  The same had been quashed by the High Court in April 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.