http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 269  of  2001

PETITIONER: THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GLORY

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 22nd March, 2000. By  this  Order a detention Order dated 15th May,  1999  has been quashed on the following reasoning :

   "2.  The ground case which forms the immediate basis for passing  the order of detention is said to have taken  place on  4.5.99 at 9.15 p.m.  The detenu was found committing the offence  punishable  under Section 4(1-A) of the Tamil  Nadu Prohibition  Act and the offence is registered in Crime  no. 834/99  on the file of the Prohibition and Enforcement Wing, Thuckkalay.  There are totally 11 adverse cases, the last of which  is  stated  to  have taken place at  05.00  a.m.   on 4.5.1999,   for   which  offences   under  the  Tamil   Nadu Prohibition  Act came to be registered in Crime No.   383/99 on  the  file of the Thiruvattar Police Station.  The  first information  report  regarding  to  that case  in  the  last adverse  case referred to above is found at page 115 of  the booklet  and it shows that the accused/detenu was  arrested. Page  121 of the booklet contains the general diary for  the last adverse case and it shows that the arrested accused was sent for remand.  It is contended by the learned counsel for the  petitioner  that if he was in remand pursuant  to  this arrest  at 5.00 a.m.  on 4.5.199, in the last adverse  case, then  there must be material in the form of Court orders  to show  that the arrested accused was released on bail on  the being produced before the Court for remand.  But there is no material  at  all to show that the arrested accused  in  the adverse  case  was  released on Bail.  Though it  may  be  a bailable  offence, yet there must be record to show that the arrested  accused in the last adverse case was let on  bail, which  facilitated  him to commit the offence in the  ground case  on  the  same day.  The detaining  authority,  in  the absence  of  materials showing that the arrested accused  in the  last  adverse case was released on bail, ought to  have

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

applied   his   mind  to  that   aspect  and  asked  for   a clarification  from  the  sponsoring  authority  as  to  the circumstance  under which the accused in the ground case was found  involving himself in the later part of the same  day. Since  he had not done it, there is a clear non  application of  mind  on  the  part of the  detaining  authority,  which vitiates the order of detention.

   It  could not be denied that there were 11 adverse cases against the detenu.  As has been noted the last adverse case was on 4th May, 1999 at 5 a.m.  We have also been shown page 115  of the booklet wherein the First Information Report has been  recorded.  The last adverse notice, referred to by the Judge reads as follows :

Sl.No . Name of the Range Section of Law Disposal/Present Stage

11.

Thiruvattar P.S. Cr.No. 383/99 Dated 4.5.99

4(1)(a) TNP Act 1937

   Thiru Rasalam.  S/o Ponnaiyan was found in possession of 5 litre illicit distilled arrack in a 5 litre black coloured plastic   can.   He  was  arrested   on  4.5.99   with   the contrabands.   The  case was charged on 4.5.99  and  pending trial.

   From  the above it is clear that this does not show that the  detenu had been remanded to judicial or police  custody in this case.

   We have also seen page 121 of the booklet containing the general diary for the last adverse case.  We do not find any statement  in this booklet which shows that the accused  has been sent for remand.  The only statement is as follows :

   "I  have  taken  up the investigation and  inquired  the witnesses  and  recorded their statements.  I have  enclosed their  copies.   I have inquired the accused.   The  Accused without  any coercion or fear accepted their guilt of having in  possession  of  illicit arrack and confirmation  of  the guilt  from  the statements of the witnesses and  confession statement  made by the accused accepting their guilt, I have closed  my investigation and filed the charge sheet for  the commission  of offences under mentioned Section and sent the same  to  the  Judicial  Magistrate  Court  Padmanabhapuram. General Diary of the Court continues."

   A  plain  reading of this statement shows that what  has been sent to the Judicial Magistrate is the charge sheet for the commission of the offence.  The High Court seems to have

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

misread  the  same  and concluded that the detenu  had  been remanded to judicial custody.

   The  learned  Judges  have  themselves  noted  that  the offence  is  a  bailable offence.  The facts show  that  the Detenu  was again caught in the evening committing the  same offence.   Thus apart from the fact that there is nothing on record to show that the Detenu had been remanded to judicial custody,  the factual position was that the accused had been apprehended on the same evening committing the same offence. It   is,  therefore,  apparent   that  without  taking  into consideration  these  facts, the High Court has quashed  the detention  order.   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.