Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Jayachandra Reddy and G.N. Ray, JJ.
Veeramani - Petitioner
versus
State of Tamil Nadu - Respondent
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 364 of 1993
(With S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2685 of 1993)
Decided on 4.2.1994
Held, that even in the case of a person in custody, a detention order can validly be passed if the authority passing the order is aware of the fact that he is actually in custody; if he has reason to believe on the basis of the reliable material that there is a possibility of his being released on bail and that on being so released, the detenu would in all probabilities indulge in prejudicial activities and if the authority passes an order after recording his satisfaction the same cannot be struck down. (Para 6)
(ii) Preventive Detention – Grounds of detention must be communicated to the detenu without avoidable delay - When grounds served within five days, it must be construed that they are served as soon as possible. (Para 9)
(iii) Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 - Sections 3(1) and 14 - Power to revoke the detention - Detention u/s. 3(1) - To be approved by State Government within 12 days. Where there is no such approval, it stands revoked. Question of detaining authority revoking the order after such approval does not arise.
Held: So far as the Tamilnadu Act with which we are concerned, we have already noted that any detention order made by the empowered officer shall cease to be in operation if not approved within 12 days. Therefore, it is clear that the Act never contemplated that the detaining authority has specific power to revoke and it cannot be inferred that a representation can be made to it within the meaning of Article 22(5). The provisions of the Act are clear and lay down that the detention order has to be approved within 12 days and where there is such no approval, it stands revoked. Therefore the representation to be made by the detenu, after the earliest opportunity was afforded to him, can be only to the Government, which has the power to approve or to revoke. That being the position, the question of detenu being informed specifically in the grounds that he had also a right to make a representation to the detaining authority itself beside the State Government does not arise. (Para 12)
Result: Petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT
K. Jayacbandra Reddy, J. - The petitioner, who is himself the detenu, was detained under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 ('Tamilnadu Act' for short). He challenged the detention order before the High Court by filing a writ of habeas corpus and the same was dismissed. Questioning the same, he has filed S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2685193 in this Court. He has also filed Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 364/93 under Article 32 of the Constitution in this Court and both are being disposed of together by a common judgment.
2. The petitioner is a resident of Madras City. On 16.2.1993 he was detained under Section 3 of the Tamilnadu Act in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, by an order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Madras. The grounds of detention in support of the order were served on the petitioner in jail on 20.2.1993. In both these petitions, common grounds challenging the detention have been advanced. Before we proceed to consider the same, it is necessary to refer to the relevant portions of the grounds, which also came under severe attack by the learned counsel for the petitioner. After referring to the subject it was mentioned thus:
"Thiru Veeramani, male, aged 35, s/o Kalappan, No. 28/1 Ayodhiyakuppam, Madras-5 is a Goonda. He has come to adverse notice in the following cases:
S. No. 1
Police Station & Crime No.
Section of Law 3.
Disposal/Presents Stage 4.
1.
D-5 Marina P.S. No. 14/91
341, 323, r/w 34 and 506(ii) IPC
On 8.1.1991
2.
D-5 marina P.S. Crime No. 41/91
341, 324, 336, 426,& 506(ii) IPC r/w 109 IPC
On 17.1.1991
3.
D-5 Marina P.S. Crime No. 379/91
448, 324, and 307 IPC
On 18.5.1991
4.
D-5 Marina P.S. Crime No. 380/91
341, 324 IPC
On 18.5.1991
5.
R-7 K.K. Nagar P.S. Crime No.288/93
141, 341, 302 & 506(ii) IPC
On 10.2.1993
6.
B-2 Esplanade P.S. Crime No. 237/93
147, 148, 120-B, 341, 307, 506(ii) and 109 IPC r/w 149 IPC
On 10.2.1993
After listing the above crimes, in Paragraph 2 of the grounds, it is just mentioned that the detention order has been made against the petitioner under Section 3(1) of the Tamilnadu Act on 16.2.1993. In Paragraph 3, reference is made to the occurrence on 10.2.1993. It is stated that on 10.2.1993 a special police party headed by the Inspector of Police, Law and Order, along with a police party consisting of a number of constables was constituted for the purpose of apprehending the petitioner and his associates connected with Crime No. 288/93 of K.K. Nagar Police Station under Sections 148, 341, 302 and 506(ii) I.P.C. and also in connection with Crime No. 237/93. On 11.2.1993 at about 3 P.M. the aforesaid special police party proceeded to Ayodhiyakuppam, Madras to apprehend the petitioner and others. While they were so proceeding, the petitioner and his associates shouted at them and when the police party surrounded the petitioner and his associates to apprehend them, the members of the police party were challenged and were attacked and the petitioner aimed a cut on the head of the Inspector with a patta knife but which fell on his left forearm causing a bleeding injury and similarly some of the associates of the petitioner inflicted injuries on the constables and stones were pelted against them which caused injuries. However, they were apprehended but the petitioner threatened the general public and thereby instilled a sense of fear and panic in their minds. Some more details of the crime were mentioned and finally it was concluded that from this material, the authority was satisfied that the petitioner and his associates acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Towards the end of Paragraph 3, it was mentioned as under:
"In arriving at my subjective satisfaction I have not taken into account the pootlegging activities of Tr. Veeramani or his connection and sentence i
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
