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.