Full Judgment Text
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.