Now in Central Prison, Madurai as remand prisoner Through.
TNK 6727.
ANNEXURE B S.A. No.
15,000.00 in cash which was a part of the booty looted from the Bank on 6.8.1988 in addition to a box company taining one revolver, 2 pistols, 3 grenades, 6 bombs and a knife.
These gold ornaments were pledged with the Bank as security for loans advanced by the Bank of certain borrowers.
Thiru V.S. Ganapathy, Deputy Superin tendent of Police, Tirupparankundram, Madurai City, for service under acknowledgement.
Both these matters have been heard together and are being disposed of by this companymon judgment.
We may number state the arguments advanced to challenge the detenus detention before mentioning the relevant facts which are material for deciding those points.
The detention order as well as its annexure companytaining the relevant ground of detention are quoted as under ANNEXURE A PROCEEDINGS OF THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MADURAI.
The appellant petitioner has also filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the same purpose in this Court challenging direct ly her husbands preventive detention.
1169, public L O F Department, dated 3.8.1988 under sub section 3 of the said Act, I hereby direct that the said Thiru Nallathambi Thambi be detained and kept in custody in the Central Prison, Madurai.
TDL 9683 and a motorcycle bearing registration No.
2, H.I.G. Colony, Anna Nagar, Madurai 20.
It is also stated that a numbere was sent by the detenu to the news media in the name of Tamil Nadu Makkal Viduthalai Eyakkam owning respon sibility for the dacoity and threatening the law enforcement agency and the Government servants with dire companysequences if they attempted to apprehend them.
The dacoits escaped in an ambassador car with registration No.
Pursuant to the companyfession of Thiru Vijayakumar gold jewels weighing about 25.900 grams was recovered from the accused Thiru Gurumoorthy.
It is further stated that the dacoity was companymitted in order to fund the militant organisation known as Tamil Nadu Makkal Viduthalai Eyakkam with which the detenu has been associated and that the detenu along with these Sri Lanka nationals belonging to the Sri Lanka militant organisation had entered into a criminal companyspiracy to companymit these companynizable offences.
The dacoits are stated to be one Karuna and some other Sri Lanka nationals who were tempo rarily living in a nearby flat which was in the possession of the detenu.
On the other hand, Shri Chaudhary, learned companynsel for the respondents companytended that even assuming that some documents referred in the grounds of detention were material and were number supplied to the detenu the effect is number to invalidate the detention order for that reason alone in view of section 5A of the Act which has been inserted by Act 60 of 1984 with effect from 21.6.1984 since the detention order can be sustained even on the remaining grounds.
Consequently, the aforesaid order of detention dated 7.9.1988 passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Madurai, and the order of companyfirmation dated 25.10.1988 by the Government of Tamil Nadu are quashed.
The first companytention is that certain documents which have been referred to in some grounds of detention were number supplied to the detenu with the result that the detenu was number given a proper and rea sonable opportunity for making an effective representation and, therefore, the order of detention is vitiated for this reason alone.
It is on these grounds that the impugned detention order dated 7.9.1988 was passed for the detenus preventive detention under the Act.
TNU 8500 was seized at 19.15 hours on 21.8.1988 in front of Samayanallur Police Station and the detenus companyfession led to recovery of gold ornaments weighing about 7275.750 grams valued at Rs.21,85,000.00 in 172 bags and 19 empty bags with Bank tags and chits and a set of keys from the detenus house on 21.8.1988 at 20.15 hours.
Shri U.R. Lalit, learned companynsel for the appellant petitioner, has advanced three companytentions.
Subsequently, these ornaments were identified as those which had been looted in the above mentioned dacoity on 6.8.1988.
It is further stated that on 9.8.1988 the detenu took Karuna and Ajanth in his car bearing registration No.
73/88 Dated 7.9.1988 DETENTION ORDER WHEREAS, I, M. DEVARAJ, I.A.S. Collector and District Magistrate, Madurai, am satisfied with respect to the person known as Thiru Nallathambi Thambi, male, aged 30 years, S o late Thiru S. Mathu, residing at Block No.
The second companytention is that some documents in the form of newspaper reports showing that the detenu was apprehended and detained even prior to 21.8.1988 when the detenu was shown to have been arrested in companynection with an offence punishable under section 397 I.P.C. were number placed before the detaining authority when it formed the opinion mentioned in the detention order which has also vitiated the detention order.
A detention order under section 3 2 of the National Security Act Central Act 65 of 1980 has been made on Thiru Nallathambi alias Thambi, male, aged 30 years, s o Late S. Mathu, 2, H.I.G. Colony, Anna Nagar, Madurai vide order NSA No.
In pursuance to detenus companyfession recovery was also made of a box companytaining one revolver, 2 pistols with ammunition, 3 grenades, 6 bombs and one knife from the house of Anandan, an employee of the detenu in Madurai.
Given under my hand and seal of office, this the 7th day of September, 1988.
sd Collector and District Magistrate, Madurai To Thiru Nallathambi Thambi, S o Late Thiru S. Mathu, Block No.
PRESENT THIRU M. DEVARAJ, I.A.S. S.A. NO.
73/88 dated 7.9.1988.
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.3.1989 of the Madras High Court in W.P. No.
634, K.K. Nagar in Madurai.
Thereafter, the State Government by its order dated 25.10.1988 made under section 12 1 of the Act has companyfirmed the order of deten tion agreeing with the opinion of the Advisory Board companysti tuted under the Act and directed that the detenu be kept in detention for a period of 12 months from the date of his detention.
On 6.8.1988, the Bank Manager and the staff of the Bank were attending to the business of the Bank which then had 443 packets companytaining valuable ornaments weighing about 20,576.150 grams valued at about rupees sixty two lakhs and cash amounting to Rs.38,945.00.
73/88 Dated 7.9.88 Sub National Security Act, 1980 Central Act 65 of 1980 detention of Thiru Nallathambi alias Thambi, Male aged 30 years, S o Late Mathu, 2, H.I.G. Colony, Anna Nagar, Madu rai u s. 3 2 of the National Security Act, 1980 Grounds of detention.
At about 10.55 A.M. on 6.8.1988 the Bank was looted and these orna ments and cash were taken away by armed dacoits on the point of revolver after locking the Bank employees and customers in the strong room.
The last companytention is that the fact of detenus arrest in companynection with an offence punishable under section 397 I.P.C. and of remand to custody by the Magistrate as well as the companytents of the bail application dated 22.8.1988 which was rejected by the Magistrate were number taken into account by the detaining authority before passing the order of detention dated 7.9.1988 which also renders the detention order invalid.
9, 11, 12 and 13 are based has deprived the detenu of his legitimate right of effective representation against the same which is guaran teed under Article 22 5 of the Constitution of India and this defect results in invalidating the entire detention order.
On 21.8.88 at 1400 hours, Thiru Nallathambi, was arrested at Samayanallur while he was driving his car TNU 8500 towards Madurai.
It is stated that the ambassador car used in the dacoity had been stolen on 4.8.1988 from Quilon in the State of Kerala by Karuna and his companypanions.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The object of these militant organisations is to achieve a separate Tamil Ealam in Sri Lanka and to secure secession of Tamil Nadu from the Union of India by violent means.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India .
205 of 1989.
This preventive detention of the detenu was challenged in the High Court of Judicature at Madras by his wife, the appellant petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for issuance of a writ of habeas company pus.
The object of filing this writ petition directly in this Court, in addition to the appeal by special leave, is to raise some additional grounds to challenge the detenus detention.
TNU 8500 to Madras along with Babu and Rajendran and subsequent ly on 10.8.1988 the detenu sent them to Nellore in Andhra Pradesh in his car to help them escape.
Shri Lalit, on behalf of the appellant petitioner, further companytended that section 5A of the Act cannot be companystrued in the manner suggested by the learned companynsel for the respondents since the guarantee to the detenu under Article 22 5 of the Constitution results in invalidating the entire detention order as claimed by him.
150 grams valued at about Rs.25 lakhs and Rs.
511 of 1989.
N. Meera Rani, is the wife of Nallathambi, who has been detained under the Nation al Security Act, 1980 Act No.
Further recovery of a bag companytaining gold ornaments weighing about 1015.600 grams valued at Rs.3,05,000.00 was made from the shop of Vijayakumar in Madurai and Vijayakumar also made a companyfession pursuant to which the recovery was made of gold ornaments weighing about 25.900 grams from Gurumoorthy.
He gave a voluntary companyfession which was recorded in the presence of witness 1 Kulanthani Anandan, Village Administrative Officer, Sathamgalam and 2 Pannerselvam, Village Administrative Officer, Thiruppalai.
The High Court by its order dated 6.3.1989 has dis missed the writ petition.
R. Lalit and V. Balachandran for the Appellant Petitioner.
The appellant petitioner, Smt.
An order dated 7.9.1988 was made by the Collector and District Magistrate, Madurai, under section 3 2 of the Act directing that the detenu be kept in custody in the Central Prison, Madurai.
2, H.I.G. Colony, Anna Nagar, Madu rai Town that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary to make the following order.
WITH Writ Petition Criminal No.
It is further stated that the detenu received from Karuna through Ajanth and Pinto a share of the booty companyprising of gold ornaments weighing about 8325.
65 of 1980 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
Further in pursuance of his companyfession a box companytaining 1 revolver, 2 pistols with ammunition, 3 gre nedes, 6 bombs, 1 knife was recovered from the house of accused Thiru Anand located in 27, Lakshimipuram, 6th Street, Madurai who is also an employee under Thiru Nallathambi.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VERMA, J. Special leave granted.
14828 of 1988.
In respect of the detenus custody in companynection with the offence under section 397 I.P.C. and rejection of his bail application, it was urged that this fact was company sidered by the detaining authority and, therefore, it does number result in any infirmity.
Rajendra Chowdhary, V. Krishnamurthy and S. Thanan jayan for the Respondents.
In pursuance of his companyfession gold jewels weighing about 7275.750 grams valued at Rs.21,85,000.00 in 172 bags and 19 empty bags with bank tags and chits and a set of key were recovered from his house on 21.8.88 at 20.15 hours.
The car TNU 8500 was seized at 1915 hours on 21.8.88 in front of Samayanallur Police Sta tion.
The above jewels recovered were identified to be stolen from the Bank of Madura on 6.8.88.
The chance prints developed from the scene of occurrance in Bank of Madu ra, K.K. Nagar Branch, Madurai tallied with the fingerprints of accused Thiru Karuna.
The material facts mentioned in the detention order and its annexure are number stated.
Further pursuant to his companyfession a bag companytaining gold jewels weighing about 1015.600 grams valued Rs.3,05,000.00 was recovered from the moulding workshop of accused Thiru Vijayakumar located in 10 A, Bharatiar Main Street, K. Pudur, Madurai.
The appellant petitioner has then challenged dismissal of the writ petition by the High Court by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India in this Court.
