1984 Supreme(Mad) 202

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K M NATARAJAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMASWAMI
Seetha - Appellant
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu and Another - Respondent
Case No : W.P. No. 2283 of 1984
Decided On : 12 June 1984

The principles of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, which render confessional statements inadmissible in evidence, are applicable by analogy to preventive detention proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982, to protect persons detained under the Act from confessional statements obtained by inducement, threat, or promise.

Headnote:

TAMIL NADU PREVENTION OF DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES OF BOOTLEGGERS, DRUG OFFENDERS, GOONDAS, IMMORAL TRAFFIC OFFENDERS AND SLUM GRABBERS ACT, 1982 - SECTION 3(1) - CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT - RELIANCE ON CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT BY DETAINING AUTHORITY - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 25 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT - ANALOGOUS APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES OF SECTION 25 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT TO PREVENTIVE DETENTION PROCEEDINGS - SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF SECTION 25 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT - PROTECTION AGAINST CONFESSIONS OBTAINED BY INDUCEMENT, THREAT OR PROMISE - EXTENSION OF PROTECTION TO PERSONS DETAINED UNDER THE ACT - APPLICABILITY OF RULES OF CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE TO PREVENTIVE DETENTION PROCEEDINGS - LIMITED APPLICABILITY OF RULES OF CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE - DISTINCTION BETWEEN PREVENTIVE DETENTION AND CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, the wife of the detenu, Duraiswamy Mudaliar, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the detention order issued against her husband under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (the Act). The detention order was based on the detenu's alleged involvement in offenses under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, including possession and sale of chloral hydrate and manufacturing and selling illicit liquor. The petitioner contended that the detention order was vitiated due to the reliance on the detenu's confessional statement, which was inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the reliance on the detenu's confessional statement by the detaining authority vitiated the detention order. The court found that Section 25 of the Evidence Act, which renders confessional statements inadmissible in evidence, is applicable by analogy to preventive detention proceedings under the Act. The court reasoned that the protection provided by Section 25 against confessional statements obtained by inducement, threat, or promise should be extended to persons detained under the Act to prevent the very mischief that Section 25 seeks to prevent.

Issues: 1. Whether the reliance on the detenu's confessional statement by the detaining authority vitiated the detention order. 2. Whether Section 25 of the Evidence Act, which renders confessional statements inadmissible in evidence, is applicable by analogy to preventive detention proceedings under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the reliance on the detenu's confessional statement by the detaining authority vitiated the detention order because it was inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The court reasoned that Section 25 presumes that confessional statements given to a police officer could have been obtained under circumstances mentioned in Section 24, which include inducement, threat, or promise. The court found that the protection provided by Section 25 against confessional statements obtained by such means should be extended to persons detained under the Act to prevent the very mischief that Section 25 seeks to prevent. 2. The court held that Section 25 of the Evidence Act is applicable by analogy to preventive detention proceedings under the Act. The court reasoned that the principles of Section 25, which are intended to protect accused persons from confessional statements obtained by improper means, should be equally applied to persons detained under the Act to ensure their protection against similar abuses.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the detention order, and directed the respondents to set the detenu at large immediately.