DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND ANR.versusR. KUMARAVEL

A                   DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND ANR.
                                        v.
                                R. KUMARA VEL

                                AUGUST 4, 1993

B                 [KULDIP SINGH AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ.]

          Preventive Detention : Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities
    of Boot-ieggers, Drug Offende1~, forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic
    Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982.

C         S.3--Detention Order-Relevant ·and vital materiaf--Consideration
    of-Telegram-Authenticity of-Held, unless confi1med by subsequent signed
    document, contents of telegram have no authenticity and cannot be con-
    sidered for assessing value of other authentic documents.

         Two persons, reported in the records of the district administration
D
    as habitual criminals, were detained under Tamil Nadu Prevention of
    Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders,
    Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982, on the
    ground that they committed violent crimes against the police personnel in
    a crowded locality at 3.00 P.M. on 25.11.1991 and thereby acted in a
E   manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

           The detenues challenged their detention by way of habeas COl]JUS
    petitions before the High court on the ground that the orders of detention
    were vitiated for non-consideration of vital documents and non-application
    of mind inasmuch as the relevant and vital documents, namely, the
F   telegram sent on their behalf to various authorities complaining that they
    were taken in to police custody at 11.00 a.m. on 25.11.1991, were neither
    considered by the detaining authority nor copies thereof were supplied to
    the detenues.

G         The District Magistrate in his counter affidavit stated that the
    detenues were arrested only after the inbdent that took place at 3.00 p.m.
                                                                                  ..
    on 25.11.1991 and the telegrams referred to had been booked late in the
    evening after the arrest had been made.

          The High Court allowed the petitions and quashed the orders of
H detention holding that the telegrams were relevant and vital material which
                                        478
    DISTRICTMAGISTIZATE v. KUMARAVEL[KULDJPSINGH,J.]                    479

should have been placed before the detaining authority and since the           A
grounds of detention did not disclose that the detaining authority had
taken the telegrams into consideration the detention was vitiated. The
State tiled the appeals by special leave.

      Allowing the appeals, this Court
                                                                               B
      HELD : 1.1. The orders of detention could not be challenged on the
ground that some material contained in a telegram simplicitor was not
taken into consideration by the detaining authority. The High Court was,
therefore, not justified in quashing the detention orders. [483-C-D]

      1.2. A telegram by itself is not an authentic document. It is like       c
an unsigned/anonyinous communication. Contents of telegrams, unlesE
confirmed by a subsequent signed applicatio'l, representation or an
affidavit, have no authenticity at all and cannot be taken into considera-
tion for assessing the value of the other authentic documents on the
record. [483-A)                                                                D
      1.3. There is nothing on the record to show that before the detention
orders were passed any other communication was sent to the detaining
authority or to the police, confirming the contents of the telegrams. The
detention orders were passed by the detaining authority on the basis of the
material placed before it. [482-G-H; 483•B)                                    E

      2. The grounds of detention me~tioned that the bail application filed
on behalf of the detenues was disiuissed. The detaining authority had
applied its mind to the bail application which contained the averment that
the detenues were arrested at 11.30 a.m. on 25.11.1991. The .detaining         F
authority had before it the case of the detenues that they were arrested at
11.00 a.m./11.30 a.m. In this view of the matter the challenge based. on the
telegrams loses it relevance. [482-E-F)

      3. Since the detenues were released as a result of the High Court
judgn1ent, it would not be in the interest of justice - due to lapse of time   G
- to further execute the detention orders and to detain them for
undergoing the remaining period of detention. It would, however, be open
for the ·detaining authority to consider afresh-, keeping in vie\v the
circumstances and their activities, the question of 4etention in accord-
ance with law. [483-D-E)                                                       H
    480                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP.1 S.C.R.

A         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
    516-517 of 1'!93.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 5.2.1992 of the Madras High
    Court in Writ Petition Nos. 16838 and 16839 of 1991.

B        K. Subramanian, K.V. Vishwanathan and K.V. Venkataraman for the
    Appellants.

          K.K. Mani and B. Kumar for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
          KULDTP SINGH, J. Special leave granted in both the petitions.

           R. Ramanathan and G. Jothisankar were detained under Tamil Nadu
    Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Durg Offenders,
    Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers
D   Act 1982 (the Act). The orders of detention were passed in respect of both
    the detenues by the District Magistrate, Thanjavur under the Act. The
    detenues challenged the detention by way of habeas corpus petitions before
    the Tamil Nadu High Court. By a Common judgment dated February 5,
    1992, the High Court allowed both the petitions and quashed the detention
E    order> These appeals, by way of special leave petitions, are by the State
    of Tamil Nadu against the judgment of the High Court.

           Both the detenues were reported in the records of the District
    Magistrate as habitual criminals having history-sheet of committing various
    crimes. The occurrence which ·has been made the ground-case in the
F   detention orders, is alleged to have taken place on November 25, 1991 at
    3.00 p.m. It is not necessary for us to go into details of the said occurrence,
    suffice it to say that the detenues allegedly committed violent crimes in a
    crowded locality against the police personnel and thereby acted in a
    manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Both the dctenucs
G   were detained on the basis of the same ground-case. The dctenues chal-
    lenged the orders of detention before the High Court inter alia on the
    following ground:-

             ''The relevant and vital documents, namely, the telegrams sent on
             behalf of the detenues to the police authorities, the Chief Minister,
H            the High Court and other authorities wherein it was complained
     IJISTRICTMAGISTI<ATE i·. KUMARAVl'.L [KULDlP SINGH, J.]             481

          that the <letcnues \Vere taken in police custody at 11.00 a.n1. nn    A
          Nove1nhcr 25, .1.991, \Vere neither placed before the detaining
          authority nor the copies of the said telegrams were supplied to the
          detenues in spite of the request in that respect made by them in
          their representations. The detention order \Vas thus vitiated for
          non-consideration of vital <locu111ents and non-application of
          1nin<l."
                                                                                B

       According to the      <letcnues the telegrams \Vere sent lo various
 authorities including the District Magistrate, Thanjavur wherein it was
 complained that the detcnues were taken by the police to the Thanjavur
 West police Station at 11.00 a.m. on November 25, 1~91 and were boing          c
 kept in police custody illegally. The ground of detention while narrating
 the occurrence of the ground-case specifically stated that the said occur-
 rence took place at 3.00 p.m. on November 25, 1991 and the detenues were
 arrested by the police thereafter. According to the High Court if the
 contents of the telegrams to the effect that the detcnues were taken in
 police custody at 11.00 a.m. arc correct, then the detcnues could not have
                                                                              D
 participated in any occurrence al 3.00 p.1n. on the same day. The High
 Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that the telegram..s sent on behalf
/ of the detenues \Vere relevant an<l vital material which should have been
 placed before the detaining authority. Since the grounds of detention did
 not disclose that the District Magistrate had taken the telegrams into         E
 consideration, the detention was \ i~iatcd1 The High Court allowed t.hc writ
 petitions and quashed the detention on this short ground.

      We do not agree with the reasoning and the conclusions reached by
 the High Court.                                                                F

      The detenues filed bail application before the Judicial Magistrate,
 Thanjavur on November 26, 1991. Para 1 of the bail application is as
 under:-

          The two petitioners taken into custody by the respondent at about     G
          11. 30 a.m. from the compound of the Sessions and District Judges'
                            11
          Court, Thanja\,'.ur.

 It is thus obvious that the dctenues had specifically mentioned in the bail
 application that they were arrested by the police at 11.30 a.m.                H
    482                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
                                                                           ~.
A        The District Magistrate .in his counter affidavit filed before the High
    Court deposed as un<ler:M

            "As regards the avermcnts in paragraph 4 of the affidavit, I submit
            that the detenues was not arrested at 11.00 A.M. in the court
            premises as alleged. He and his associate were arrested only after
B
            the incident that took place at 3.00 P.M. on 25.11.1991. The
            telegrams referred to had been booked only after the arrest has
            been n1ade, i.e., late in the evening. J have also persued the bail
            application filed on behalf of the dctenu which contains the avcr-
            menls that the detenu was arrested at ll.30 AM. and I am also
c           aware that it is a false statement of the detenu as he was arrested
            only at 3.00 P.M. Telegrams were sent at 4.45 P.M. only. This
            respondent has not referred to the telegrams and not relied on the
            telegrams in order lo arrive at the subjective satisfaction and hence
            they are not material documents and the detenu cannot contend
            that he has been deprived of making effective and meaningful
D
            representation. All the documents relied in the grounds of deten-
            tion have been furnished to the detenu. Hence, the contention to
            the contrary is not sustainable in law and is denied."

          Learned Advocate-General appearing for the State of the Tamil
E Nadu has taken us through the grounds of detention. It has been mentioned
    in para 3 of the grounds that the bail application filed on behalf of the
    detcnues was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate, Thanjanir on Novem-
    ber 26, 1991. It is thus obvious that the District Magistrate had applied his
    mind to the baii' application which contained the avcrment lbat the
F   detenues were arrested by the police at U.30 A.M. on November 25, 1991.
    The District Magistrate had before him the case of the detenues that tbey
    were arrested by the Police at 11.00/11.30 A.M. In this view of the matter,
    the argument of the learned counsel for the detenues based on the
    telegrams looses its relevO:nce.

G         We n1ay examine the. argument of the learned collnsel for the
    detenues from another angle. The detenues have based their case solely on
    the fact that the contents of the telegrams sent on their behalf were not
    taken into consideration by the detaining authority. There is nothing on the
    record to show that before the detention orders were passed any other
H   communication was sent to the detaining authority or to the police, con-
    DISTRICTMAUISTRATE v. KUMARAVEL[KULDIPSINGH,J.]                    483

firming the contents of the telegrams. A telegram by itself is not an A
authentic document. It is like an unsigned/anonymous communication.
Unless a telegram is confirmed by a subsequent signed application, rep-
resentation or an affidavit, the contents of the telegrams have no authen-
ticity at all and the same cannot be Iaken into consideration for assessing
the value of the other authentic documents on the record. The detention
orders were passed by the District Magistrate on the basis of the material
                                                                            B
placed before him by the police authorities. Any material received by the
District Magistrate in the shape of telegrams couli.l not be taken into
consideration by him in the absence of any subsequent communication
confirming the same. We are, therefore, of the view that the orders of
detention could not be challenged on the ground that some material            c
contained in a telegram simplicitor was not taken into consideration by the
detaining authority

      The High Court was, therefore, not justified in qrnJShing the deten-
tion orders on the ground discussed above. We set aside the reasoning and
conclusions reached by the High Court on the above said issue.                D
       The detenues were released, as a result of the High Court judgment,
in February 1992. We of the view that it would not be in the interest of
justice - due to lapse of time - to detain the respondents for undergoing
the remaining period of detention under the impugned detention orders.
                                                                              E
We, therefore, direct that the impugned detention orders shall not be
further executed as a result of our judgment. It would, ho\vever, be open
for the detaining authority to consider afresh, keeping in view the present
circun1stances and activities of the respondents, the question of detention
in aceordancewith law. We allow the appeals in the above terms.

R.P.                                                     Appeals allowed.