Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 268 of 2001
PETITIONER:
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MUNIANDI
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/03/2001
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 12th April, 2000,
by which a Detention Order dated 12th August, 1999 has been
quashed. The Detention Order has been quashed on the ground
that there has been non-application of mind on the part of
the Detaining Authority. This conclusion was arrived at by
holding that page 19 of the Recovery Mahazar shows two
separate sample bottles each containing 600 mls. of arrack,
whereas page 45 of the Chemical Examiner’s Report shows 550
mls. of arrack. We have been shown and looked at page 19
of the Recovery Mahazar and page 45 of the Chemical
Examiner’s Report. They do not both relate to the same
case. Page 19 relates to this case but page 45 relates to
some other case. Mr. Lambat fairly admitted that the two
do not relate to the same case. From the above, it is
apparent that the High Court materially erred in not
considering these facts before quashing the detention order.
In this view of the matter, 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.