Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. V. Parthiban, Advocate for Petitioner.
  • Mr. G. Saravanan, Government Advocate for Respondents.
Judges
  • P. Sathasivam
  • V. Dhanapalan, JJ.
Acts
  • Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).2.
  • Section 154(1), Cr.P.C and Order 560
  • Sections 341, 336, 307, 353, 427
  • Nadu Act 14 of 1982.5.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. V. Parthiban, Advocate for Petitioner.
  • Mr. G. Saravanan, Government Advocate for Respondents.
Judges
  • P. Sathasivam
  • V. Dhanapalan, JJ.
Acts
  • Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).2.
  • Section 154(1), Cr.P.C and Order 560
  • Sections 341, 336, 307, 353, 427
  • Nadu Act 14 of 1982.5.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion (P. Sathasivam, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner challenged a detention order dated 11.11.2005 that detained her husband named David as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). The petition was heard by the Court after representations from learned counsel for the petitioner and the Government Advocate for the respondents. The petitioner's primary factual complaint was a discrepancy in the Serial Numbers appearing on several First Information Report (F.I.R.) forms supplied in the detenu's booklet; she alleged that, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, the detention order ought to be quashed for non-application of mind. The respondents furnished a supporting affidavit from the Sponsoring Authority and a counter-affidavit from the Detaining Authority explaining the origin and use of the F.I.R. form serial numbers and the correct assignment of Crime Numbers. The Court considered statutory provisions (Section 154(1), Cr.P.C.) and the Madras Police Standing Orders (Order 560) and reviewed prior Division Bench decisions addressing similar objections. The Court ultimately dismissed the habeas corpus petition.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether a discrepancy in Serial Numbers printed on F.I.R. forms (as supplied by Government Press) invalidates or vitiates the detention order where the Crime Numbers assigned in the F.I.R. Book are in proper serial order.
  2. Whether the Detaining Authority failed to apply its mind by not taking into account that other adverse cases (distinct Crime Numbers) might prevent the detenu's release even if he obtained bail in the ground case.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner, through learned counsel Mr. V. Parthiban, pointed out discrepancies in F.I.R. form serial numbers for multiple crime entries supplied in the detenu's booklet (specific pages and Crime Numbers were identified) and submitted that such unexplained discrepancies demonstrate non-application of mind by the detaining authority and justify quashing the detention order.
  • Counsel further argued (drawing attention to paragraph no.4 of the grounds of detention) that the Detaining Authority failed to consider that even if the detenu obtained bail in the ground case, separate orders would be required for other adverse cases; thus the Detaining Authority ought to have considered that release from custody might still be impossible.

Respondents' Arguments

  • The Government Advocate and the Sponsoring/Detaining Authorities explained (by affidavit) that the serial numbers printed on F.I.R. forms are those assigned by the Government Press and bear no relation to the crime number maintained in the F.I.R. Book at the police station; therefore identical or repeated form serial numbers do not indicate that multiple crimes were fabricated or registered on the same day.
  • The Sponsoring Authority's supporting affidavit described how F.I.R. forms are issued in books by the Government Press (books containing leaves with repeating numbers, limited availability of copies, use of xeroxed copies, and separate detachment systems for law & order and crime), and reiterated that crime numbers (as maintained in the F.I.R. Book) are assigned consecutively by the station and are the operative identifiers for crimes.
  • With regard to the second argument, the respondents explained that the ground case was triable by the Court of Sessions and involved relatively graver offences (listed as Sections 341, 336, 307, 353, 427 and 506 Part II, I.P.C.), whereas the adverse cases were triable by a Magistrate and were of a lesser nature; hence if the detenu were granted bail in the ground (graver) case, it would not be difficult to secure bail in the other cases, and the Detaining Authority's approach was not flawed.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
H.C.P No. 1561 of 1995, dated 19.3.1996 Rejection of contention that discrepancy in F.I.R. form serial numbers vitiates detention where Crime Numbers are in order. The Court relied on this earlier Division Bench decision which, after verification, rejected the same contention where Crime Numbers were properly assigned.
H.C.P No. 786 of 1999, dated 09.11.1999 Illustration that use of different F.I.R. books (and resulting serial-number discrepancies) may not be relevant and will not vitiate an order of detention. The Court cited the Division Bench’s conclusion that discrepancies in F.I.R. book serials (due to use of different books) need not invalidate detention orders.
H.C.P No. 492 of 2003, dated 04.11.2003 Observation that xeroxing or reuse of F.I.R. form numbers does not vitiate detention orders and that the truth of the ground case cannot be gone into in habeas corpus proceedings. The Court relied on this authority to support the proposition that reuse of form numbers or multiple numbering does not per se invalidate detention and that merits of the ground case are not for determination in the present proceedings.
H.C.P No. 1165 of 2005, dated 09.03.2006 Acceptance that F.I.R. forms and their serial numbers are issued by the Government Press and are independent of the Crime Number assigned by the Station House Officer. The Court referenced this decision to uphold the respondents’ explanation and to reinforce that form serial numbers have no bearing on the station-assigned Crime Numbers.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court undertook a factual verification of the serial numbers in the F.I.R. forms supplied in the detenu's booklet and acknowledged that certain F.I.R. forms bore identical serial numbers despite different dates of occurrence. The Court then considered the explanation provided in the Sponsoring Authority's supporting affidavit: that F.I.R. forms are manufactured and numbered by the Government Press (books contain leaves with repeating numbers, limited copies are produced and some copies are xeroxed), and that internal station practice is to assign a consecutive Crime Number in the F.I.R. Book which is the operative identifier for subsequent records.

The Court reviewed Section 154(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which requires that information relating to cognizable offences be reduced to writing and recorded in a book in a form prescribed by the State Government, and Order 560 of the Madras Police Standing Orders which states that entries in the F.I.R. Book are to be given a consecutive number constituting the Crime Number. The Court emphasized that the Crime Numbers had been properly and consecutively assigned and that the only discrepancy was in the Government Press-issued F.I.R. form serial numbers, over which station officers have no control.

The Court further considered and relied on earlier Division Bench authorities (listed above) where similar objections relating to F.I.R. form serial numbers had been rejected once the Crime Numbers were found to be in order. Applying those precedents and the statutory/police standing order framework, the Court accepted the respondents’ explanation and concluded that the serial-number discrepancy did not demonstrate non-application of mind nor did it vitiate the detention order.

On the separate contention that the Detaining Authority failed to consider that other pending adverse cases might prevent the detenu's release even if bail was granted in the ground case, the Court accepted the Detaining Authority's position: the ground case involved graver offences triable by the Court of Sessions (Sections 341, 336, 307, 353, 427 and 506 Part II, I.P.C.), while the adverse cases were triable by a Magistrate and of a lesser nature. The Court reasoned that if bail were obtained in the graver ground case, obtaining bail in the lesser adverse cases would not be difficult; thus the Detaining Authority's conclusion could not be faulted.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The habeas corpus petition fails and is DISMISSED.

Implications:

  • The detention order dated 11.11.2005 detaining the petitioner’s husband under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 is upheld as not vitiated by the asserted discrepancy in F.I.R. form serial numbers.
  • The Court accepted that Crime Numbers were properly assigned in serial order and that F.I.R. form serial numbers issued by the Government Press are not determinative of the validity of the Crime Numbers or of the detention order.
  • The Court found no failure of application of mind by the Detaining Authority, including in relation to the likelihood of the detenu obtaining release on bail; no interference with the detention order was warranted.
  • No broader or new legal principle was announced by the Court beyond applying existing statutory provisions, police standing orders, and prior Division Bench decisions to the facts of this case; the decision has the direct effect of affirming the detention order as to these parties.

This summary is based exclusively on the content of the provided opinion and does not add or infer facts beyond the text of that opinion.

Show full summary ...

    Revathy Petitioner v. State Of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By Secretary To Government, Prohibition And Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009 And Another S

    P. Sathasivam, J.

    1. The petitioner herein challenges the detention order, dated 11.11.2005, detaining her husband by name Dav id as Goonda as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).

    2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

    3. Mr. V. Parthiban, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in view of the discrepancy in the Serial Numbers in the First Information Reports, in the absence of proper explanation, the impugned order passed by the second respondent is liable to be quashed on the ground of non-Application of mind.

    4. In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioner furnished certain details, viz., in the Booklet supplied to the detenu, page Nos. 25 and 26 are the F.I.R Copy of M-3 Puzhal Police Station in Crime No. 1061 of 2005; page Nos. 35 and 36 are the F.I.R Copy of M-3 Puzhal Police Station in Crime No. 1062 of 2005; Page Nos. 44 and 45 are the F.I.R Copy of M-3 Puzhal Police Station in Crime No. 1068 of 2005; and the first two F.I.Rs relate to the adverse cases and the last one relates to the ground case. He also pointed out that with regard to the first case relating to Crime No. 1061 of 2005, the date of occurrence is 20.10.2005 and the serial number of the F.I.R is 1661834; the second case relates to Crime No. 1062 of 2005 and the date of occurrence is 15.10.2005 and the serial number of the F.I.R is 1661833; and the third case, which is the ground case, relates to Crime No. 1068 of 2005 and the date of occurrence is 24.10.2005 and the serial number of the F.I.R is 1661834. By pointing out the above details, he submits that even though there is a clear gap of 2 days respectively with regard to the date of occurrence and two cases reported on 21.10.2005 and 24.10.2005, the Serial Number of the F.I.Rs relating to those two cases is same, which clearly shows that all the cases have been foisted against the detenu in a single day to detain him under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.

    5. In the light of the factual details furnished, we verified the Serial Numbers found in the F.I.R As pointed out, in respect of the two cases reported on 21.10.2005 and 24.10.2005, the serial number of the F.I.R is the same. However, learned Government Advocate, by drawing our attention to the explanation offered by the Sponsoring Authority and the Detaining Authority in the form of supporting affidavit and counter affidavit respectively, contended that the serial numbers found in the F.I.R Forms are the numbers given by the Government Press and they are in no way concerned with the maintenance of F.I.R Book at the Police Station. It is useful to refer to the details furnished by the Sponsoring Authority in the Supporting Affidavit, dated 22.6.2006, which reads as under:

    “I submit that First Information Reports forms are issued by the Government through the Government Press. Each book of First Information Report forms will contain 150 leaves and the same was stapled. Six of the leaves will have the same number. Hence, in one book 25 numbers of FIR form will be available. Due to shortage and availability of Xerox machines only three copies are prepared in the issued FIR form and rest of the copies will be Xeroxed and forwarded to the higher police authorities.

    I also submit that the instruction regarding the First Information Report in the Police Standing Order is as follows:

    “Cases entered in the First Information Report Book will be given a consecutive number and this number will constitute the crime number for the purpose of the subsidiary records”

    I further submit that every Police Station will have two detachment. One is called Law and Order detachment who will register cases against human body and the other detachment called Crime detachment who will register cases against property. Each of the detachment were supplied with FIR forms Books. But for the Police Station Crime number is maintained in serial order. When any offence reported against human body the complaint will be taken by the Law and Order Police and they will register the case in the FIR forms available with them by taking the crime number from the FIR Index and continue the investigation. In case of a report of a property offence the crime police will take the complaint and they will register a case in the FIR forms available with them by taking the crime number from the FIR Index and will continue the investigation. Hence the crime number will be in serial order for the police station. The crime number and the FIR forms Serial number will not tally. Further the Serial Number found in the FIR forms are the number given by the Government Press and they are not in any way concerned with the maintenance of FIR book at the Police Station. Further I submit that on the complaint of one Yogannath on 21.10.2005 at 16.00 hrs. I registered a case in M-3 Puzhal Police Station Crime No. 1061/2005 and 2 grams of Kammal one of the property was recovered from the co-accused. Similarly on 24.10.2005 at 09.00 hrs Tr. Vasu, Sub-Inspector of Police with the help of the public apprehend the detenu and his associate and produced before me and lodged a special report and I registered a case in M-3 Puzhal Police Station Crime No. 1068/2005 and took up the investigation. I further submit that M-3 Puzhal Police Station Crime Nos. 1061/2005 and 1068/2005 were registered on different dates and on different complaint. Further the properties concerned in all the cases cited in the grounds of detention were also recovered. I, with great respect, submit that the detenu admitted all the offence in his confession statement and also there are other material evidences available to show that the detenu is involved in all the cases cited in the grounds of detention.”

    There is no reason to disbelieve the above explanation offered by the Sponsoring Authority.

    6. Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, refers to ‘Information to the Police and their powers to Investigate’. Section 154(1) makes it clear that every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. Order 560 of the Madras Police Standing Orders speaks about the instruction regarding First Information Reports. Sub-clause (1) states that cases entered in the First Information Report Book will be given a consecutive number and this number will constitute the crime number for the purpose of subsequent records. Thus, it is clear that every information given orally or in writing shall be entered in a book to be kept by the Officer. It is also clear that the cases entered in the F.I.R Book will be given a consecutive number and the same shall be the crime number for all purposes.

    7. It is not in dispute that the Crime Numbers have been properly assigned. In other words, the Crime Numbers are in seriatim and there is no dispute regarding the same. The only discrepancy pointed out relates to the Serial Number found in the F.I.R Forms. We have already noted that the serial numbers in the F.I.R Forms are the numbers given by the Government Press and the Officers in the Station have no role in assigning serial numbers.

    8. In H.C.P No. 1561 of 1995, dated 19.3.1996, when similar contention was raised regarding discrepancy in Serial Number in the F.I.Rs, after verifying the same and after being satisfied that the Crime Numbers are in order, a Division Bench of this Court rejected the said contention.

    9. In H.C.P No. 786 of 1999, dated 09.11.1999, while considering similar objection, the Division Bench concluded thus:

    “6. ….. From the serial of the F.I.R book, it is clear that two different books have been used and as such the discrepancy with regard to the serial number of the F.I.R book may not have any relevance and the same will not vitiate the impugned order of detention also.”

    10. In H.C.P No. 492 of 2003, dated 4.11.2003, while considering similar issue, the Division Bench observed as follows:

    “6. ….. It is pointed out by the learned Government Advocate that for want of F.I.R Form numbers, the forms are Xeroxed and more than one number of the form is used for different crimes and this will not vitiate the order of detention. We agree with the learned Government Advocate in this respect. That apart there cannot be an impossibility at all since the second crime has been registered on a latter date in respect of the crime which took place on the earlier date. The truth or otherwise of the ground case cannot be gone into in the present proceedings.”

    11. In H.C.P No. 1165 of 2005, dated 09.03.2006, the Division Bench, while considering similar objection, accepted the stand of the Government Advocate that F.I.R Forms are issued by the Government Press and that the Serial Numbers therein has nothing to do with the Crime Number assigned by the Station House Officer.

    12. All the above decisions make it clear that as per Section 154(1), Cr.P.C and Order 560 of the Madras Police Standing Orders, the information either oral or in writing has to be entered in the First Information Report Book and the same has to be assigned a number, which is called Crime Number, and there cannot be any error in assigning Crime Number. In such circumstances, we accept the explanation offered by the respondents and reject the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

    13. Finally, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by drawing our attention to paragraph No. 4 of the grounds of detention, contended that though the Detaining Authority was aware of the fact that the detenu was in remand in M-3 Puzhal Police Station Cr. Nos. 1068/2005, 766/2005, 1033/2005, 1061/2005 and 1062 of 2005, however, he has not taken note of the relevant fact that even if he comes out on bail in the ground case, in the absence of separate order by the competent Court in respect of other Crime Numbers (adverse cases), there is no possibility of the detenu coming out from the prison. According to him, this aspect has not been considered by the Detaining Authority.

    14. As rightly explained by the second respondent in her counter affidavit dated 22.6.2006 and rightly stated by the learned Government Advocate, all the adverse cases are triable by the Magistrate but the ground case is triable by the Court of Sessions. The ground case relates to various offences under Sections 341, 336, 307, 353, 427 and 506 Part II, I.P.C and those offences are graver in nature. If the detenu comes out on bail in a case involving graver offence, it will not be difficult to get bail in other adverse cases, considering the lesser nature of offence. If graver offence is taken into consideration for passing the order of detention, the ultimate decision taken by the Detaining Authority cannot be faulted with. Accordingly, we reject the said contention also.

    15. In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any error or infirmity for interference. Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same is dismissed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Revathy Petitioner v. State Of Tamil Nadu,...
    (Jul 3, 2006)