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

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 207  of  2001

PETITIONER: THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: BASKAR

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       20/02/2001

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 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 follows:

   On  24-6-99 at about 1100 hours Tvi.  Thiruvengadam 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-arm  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  broken  pieces scattered  all  over  the  roadside.  The  public  who  were 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

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

at the spot.

   In our view, there is no vagueness in the said Detention Order.   The  Detention  Order  clearly sets  out  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 out  that  the  complainant was threatened.   The  Detention Order sets out these persons terrorised everyone at the spot and one of them picked up a soda bottle from the nearby shop and hurled the same against the public.  The Detention Order sets  out  that  the  normalcy of the  area  was  completely dislocated as terror and panic had been created at the spot.

   We fail to see what further and better particulars could have  been  given in the Detention Order.  In  the  impugned Order  the learned Judge has failed to clarify what  further and  better  particulars  could  have   been  given  in  the Detention  Order.  In our view, 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.

(M. B. SHAH)

(S. N. VARIAVA)

February 20, 2001.