Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 1047 2000
PETITIONER:
STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANOTHER
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
KADAL KANI
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/12/2000
BENCH:
M.B.Shah, S.N.Variava
JUDGMENT:
L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J
O R D E R Leave granted. Heard the learned counsel
for the parties. The High Court by the impugned judgment
and order dated 7.4.2000 has quashed the detention order
dated 16.10.1999 on the ground that there is non-application
of mind on the part of the detaining authority and has
mechanically signed the same because it is stated in the
detention order that it be served through the
Superintendent, Central Prison, Thiruchirapalli which would
mean that the detaining authority was not aware of the fact
that the detenu was released on bail. The learned counsel
for the appellants submitted that there is total
non-application of mind by the High Court to the detention
order. Detention order specifically mentions in the ground
No.6 that he was aware that detenu has been released on
conditional bail by order dated 17.9.1999 in Cr. M.P. No.
2138 of 1999 by the Judicial Magistrate-II, Mayiladuthurai.
In this set of circumstances, it cannot be said that there
is non-application of mind by the detaining authority merely
by mentioning that detention order be served through
Superintendent, Central Prison, Thiruchirapalli. In our
view, it appears that the learned Judge has lightly
interfered with the detention order without reading ground
No.6 which specifically recites that detenu was released on
bail by order dated 17th September 1999. Further the
detention order is addressed to the detenu mentioning his
residential address. Therefore, there was no question of
serving the detention order through Superintendent, Central
Prison. By sending copy to the Superintendent, Central
Prison would not make the detention order illegal. Hence,
the impugned order passed by the High Court requires to be
quashed and set aside and is accordingly, set aside.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the detenu
should be ordered to surrender to undergo the remaining
period of detention. For this purpose, he placed reliance
on the directions issued by this Court in Sunil Fulchand
Shah v. Union of India & Ors. [(2000) 3 SCC 409] which is
reproduced hereunder: - 6. The quashing of an order of
detention by the High Court brings to an end such an order
and if an appeal is allowed against the order of the High
Court, the question whether or not the detenu should be made
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
to surrender to undergo the remaining period of detention,
would depend upon a variety of factors and in particular on
the question of lapse of time between the date of detention,
the order of the High Court, and the order of this Court,
setting aside the order of the High Court.
A detenu need not be sent back to undergo the
remaining period of detention, after a long lapse of time,
when even the maximum prescribed period intended in the
order of detention has expired, unless there still exists a
proximate temporal nexus between the period of detention
indicated in the order by which the detenu was required to
be detained and the date when the detenu is required to be
detained pursuant to the appellate order and the State is
able to satisfy the court about the desirability of
further or continued detention.
Applying the aforesaid ratio, in our view, this is not
a fit case for directing the detenu to surrender to undergo
the remaining period of detention. Detention order was
passed on 6th October, 1999 and hence, detention period is
over. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the aforesaid
extent.