A  

B  

DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND ANR.  

v.  R.KUMARAVEL  

AUGUST 4, 1993  

[KULDIP SINGH AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ.)  

Preventive Detention : Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities  of Boot-leggei~, Drug Offenders, forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic  Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982.  

C S.3-Detention Order-Relevant ·and vital material-Consideration  of-Telegram-Authenticity of-Held, unless confirmed by subsequent signed  document, contents of telegram have no authenticity and cannot be con- sidered for assessing value of other authentic documents.  

D Two persons, reported in the records of the district administration  as habitnal criminals, were detained under Tamil Nadu Prevention of  Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders,  Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Aet, 1982, on the  ground that they committed violent crimes against the police personnel in  a crowded locality at 3.00 P.M. on 25.11.1991 and thereby acted in a  

E manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.  

F  

The detenues challenged their detention by way of habeas coipus  petitions before the High court on the ground that the orders of detention  were vitiated for non-consideration of vital documents and non-application  of mind inasmuch as the relevant and vital documents, namely, the  telegram sent on their behalf to various authorities complaining that they  were taken in to police custody at 11.00 a.m. on 25.11.1991, were neither  considered by the detaining authority nor copies thereof were supplied to  the detenues.  

G The District Magistrate in his counter affidavit stated that the  detenues were arrested only after the iu~ident that took place at 3.00 p.m.  on 25.11.1991 and the telegrams referred to had been booked late in the  evening after the arrest had .been made.  

The High Court allowed the petitions and quashed the orders of  H detention holding that the telegrams were relevant and vital material which  

478

__ ,  -

-

DISTRICT MAGISTRATE v. KUMARAVEL[KULDIPSINGH,J.] 479  

should have been placed before the detaining authority and since the A  grounds of detention did not disclose that the detaining authority had  taken the telegrams into consideration the detention was vitiated. The  State filed the appeals by special leave.  

Allowing the appeals, this Court  

HELD : 1.1. The orders of detention could not be challenged on the  ground that some material contained in a telegram simplicitor was not  taken into consideration by the detaining authority. The High Court was,  therefore, not justified in quashing the detention orders. [ 483-C-D]  

1.2. A telegram by itself is not an authentic document. It is like  an unsigned/anonymous communication. Contents of telegrams, unless  confirmed by a subsequent signed applicatio'l, representation or an  affidavit, have no authenticity at all and cannot be taken into considera- tion for assessing the value of the other authentic documents on the  

B  

c  

record. [ 483-A] D  

1.3. There is nothing on the record to show that before the detention  orders were passed any other communication was sent to the detaining  authority or to the police, confirming the contents of the telegrams. The  detention orders were passed by the detaining authority on the basis of the  material placed before it. [ 482-G-H; 483-B)  

2. The grounds of detention me11tioned that the bail application filed  on behalf of the detenues was dis)Dissed. The detaining authority had  applied its mind to the bail application which contained the averment that  

E  

the detenues were arrested at 11.30 a.m. on 25.11.1991. The detaining F  authority had before it the case of the detenues that they were arrested at  11.00 a.mJll.30 a.m. In this view of the matter the challenge based on the  telegrams loses it relevance. [482-E-F]  

3. Since the detenues were released as a result of the High Court  judgment, it would not be in the interest of .iustice - due to lapse of time G  - to further execute the detention orders and to detain them for  undergoing the remaining period of detention. It would, however, be open  for the detaining authority to consider afresh, keeping in view the  circumstances and their activities, the question of detention in accord- ance with law. [ 483-D-E) H .

480 SUPREMECOURTREPORTS [1993JSUPP.1S.C.R.  

A CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.  516-517 of 1993.  

From the Judgment and Order dated 5.2.1992 of the Madras High  Court in Writ Petition Nos. 16838 and 16839 of 1991.  

B K. Subramanian, K.V. Vishwanathan and K.V. Venkataraman for the  

c  

Appellants.  

K.K. Mani and B. Kumar for the Respondents.  

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by  

KULDIP SINGH, J. Special leave granted in both the petitions.  

R. Ramanathan and G. Jothisankar were detained under Tamil Nadu  Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Durg Offenders,  Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers  

D Act 1982 (the Act). The orders of detention were passed in respect of both  the detenues by the District Magistrate, Thanjavur under the Act. The  detenues challenged the detention by way of habeas corpus petitions before  the Tamil Nadu High Court. By a Common judgment dated February 5,  1992, the High Court allowed both the petitions and quashed the detention  

E orders These appeals, by way of special leave petitions, are by the State  of Tamil Nadu against the judgment of the High Court.  

Both the detenues were reported in the records of the District  Magistrate as habitual criminals having history-sheet of committing various  crimes. The occurrence which ·has been made the ground-case in the  

F detention orders, is alleged to have taken place on November 25, 1991 at  3.00 p.m. It is not necessary for us to go into details of the said occurrence,  suffice it to say that the detenues allegedly committed violent crimes in a  crowded locality against the police personnel and thereby acted in a  manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Both the detenues  

G were detained on the basis of the same ground-case. The detenues chal·  lenged the orders of detention before the High Court inter alia on the  following ground:-

"The relevant and vital documents, namely, the telegrams sent on  behalf of the detenues to the police authorities, the Chief Minister,  

H the High Court and other authorities wherein it was complained  

..  

-

-

•  

-1  

DISTRICT MAGISTRATE v. KUMARAVFL [KULD!P SINGH, J.] 481  

that the detenues were taken in police cu,tody at 11.00 a.m. on A  November 25, 1991, were neither placed before the detaining  authority nor the copies of the said telegrams were supplied to the  detenues in spite of the request in that respect made by them in  their representations. The detention order wa> thus vitiated for  non-consideration of vital documents and non-application of B  mind.''  

According to the detenues the telegrams were sent to vanous  authorities including the District Magistrate, Thanjavur wherein it was  complained that the detenues were taken by the police to the Thanjavur  West police Station at 11.00 a.m. on November 25, 1991 and were being C  kept in police custody illegally. The ground of detention while narrating  the occurrence of the ground-case specifically stated that the said occur- rence took place at 3.00 p.m. on November 25, 1991 and the dctenues were  arrested by the police thereafter. According to the High Court if the  contents of the telegrams to the effect that the detenues were taken in D  police custody al 11.00 a.m. are correct, then the detenues could not have  participated in any occurrence at 3.00 p.m. on the same day. The High  Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that the telegrams sent on behalf  

/ of the detenues were relevant and vital material which should have been  placed before the detaining authority. Since the grounds of detention did  not disclose that the District Magistrate had taken the telegrams into E  consideration, the detention was 1i\iatetl'< The High Court allowed the writ  petitions and quashed the detention on this short ground.  

We do not agree with the reasoning and the conclusions reached by  the High Court.  

The detenues filed bail application before the Judicial Magistrate,  Thanjavur on November 26, 1991. Para l of the bail application is as  under:-

F  

'The two petitioners taken into custody by the respondent at about G  11. 30 a.m. from the compound of the Sessions and District Judges'  Court, Thanja\'llr.11 ·  

It is thus obvious that the detenues had specifically mentioned in the bail  application that they were arrested by the police at 11.30 a.m. H

A  

B  

c  

D  

482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.  

\..  The District Magistrate in his counter affidavit filed before the High  

Court deposed as under:-

"As regards the averments in paragraph 4 of the affidavit, I submit  that the detenues was not arrested at 11.00 A.M. in the court  premises as alleged. He and his associate were arrested only after  the incident that took place at 3.00 P.M. on 25.11.1991. The  

telegrams referred to had been booked only after the arrest has  been made, i.e., late in the evening. I have also persued the bail  

application filed on behalf of the detenu which contains the aver- ments that the detenu was arrested at 11.30 AM. and I am also  aware that it is a false statement of the dctenu as he was arrested  only at 3.00 P.M. Telegrams were sent at 4.45 P.M. only. This  respondent has not referred to the telegrams and not relied on the  telegrams in order to arrive at the subjective satisfaction and hence  they are not material documents and the detenu cannot contend  that he has been deprived of making effective and meaningful  representation. All the documents relied in the grounds of deten- tion have been furnished to the detenu. Hence, the contention to  the contrary is not sustainable in law and is denied."  

Learned Advocate-General appearing for the State of the Tamil  E Nadu has taken us through the grounds of detention. It has been mentioned  

in para 3 of the grounds that the bail application filed on behalf of the  detenues was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur on Novem- ber 26, 1991. It is thus obvious that the District Magistrate had applied his  mind to the bail application which contained the averment that the  

F detenues were arrested by the police at 11.30 AM. on November 25, 1991.  

G  

The District Magistrate had before him the case of the detenues that they  were arrested by the Police al 11.00/11.30 AM. In this view of the matter,  the argument of the learned counsel for the detenues based on the  telegrams looses its relevance.  

We may examine the. argument of the learned counsel for the  detenues from another angle. The detenucs have based their case solely on  the fact that the contents of the telegrams sent on their behalf were not  taken into consideration by the detaining authority. There is nothing on the  record to show that before the detention orders were passed any other  

H communication was sent to the detaining authority or to the police, con-

•  

I

•  

DISTRICT MAGISTRATE v. KUMARAVEL [KULDJP SINGH,J.] 483  

firming the contents of the telegrams. A telegram by itself is not an A  authentic document. It is like an unsigned/anonymous communication.  Unless a telegram is confirmed by a subsequent signed application, rep- resentation or an affidavit, the contents of the telegrams have no authen- ticity at all and the same cannot be taken into consideration for assessing  the value of the other authentic documents on the record. The detention  orders were pa.<Sed by the District Magistrate on the basis of the material  placed before him by the police authorities. Any material received by the  District Magistrate in the shape of telegrams could not be taken into  consideration by him in the absence of any subsequent communication  

confirming the same. We are, therefore, of the view that the orders of  detention could not be challenged on the ground that some material  contained in a telegram simplicitor was not taken into consideration by the  detaining authority  

B  

c  

The High Court was, therefore, not justified in quashing the deten- tion orders on the ground discussed above. We set aside the reasoning and  conclusions reached by the High Court on the above said issue. D  

The detenues were released, as a result of the High Court judgment,  in February 1992. We of the view that it would not be in the interest of  justice - due to lapse of time - to detain the respondents for undergoing  the remaining period of detention under the impugned detention orders.  We, therefore, direct that the impugned detention orders shall not be  further executed as a result of our judgment. It would, however, be open  for the detaining authority to consider afresh, keeping in view the present  'circumstances and activities of the respondents, the question of detention  in accordance. with law. We allow the appeals in the above terms.  

R.P. Appeals allowed.  

E