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.