IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1870-1871 of 2010
Vaithi @Vaithianathan ...Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu ...Respondent
O R D E R
T.S. THAKUR, J.
1. Criminal Appeals No.1870-1871 of 2010 disposed of by an
order of this Court dated 27th September, 2010 arose out of an
order passed by the Trial Court in CC No.259 and 260 of 2002
convicting the appellant of an offence of theft of electricity and
sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period
of one month and a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of
the fine, the appellant was directed to undergo simple
1
imprisonment for a further period of 15 days in both the cases.
The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. At the hearing of the appeals, it was argued on behalf of
the appellant that the appellant had already undergone eight
months of imprisonment and yet continued to be in jail even
when the sentence awarded to him was only for a period of
one month. It was in that backdrop that this Court directed an
enquiry into the matter by the High Court and called for a
report on the subject.
3. From the report received pursuant to the above direction,
it appears that the appellant had undergone a sentence of 13
days only and that the allegation that he had been in jail for
eight months was factually incorrect. The report sets out the
dates on which the appellant was taken into custody and
released on bail.
4. When the matter came up on 16th September, 2011, this
Court felt that appellant had made a factually wrong statement
that he had undergone eight months’ imprisonment. A copy of
2
the report was accordingly directed to be furnished to the
counsel for the appellant for filing his response to the same.
In compliance with the said direction, the learned counsel for
the appellant has filed his reply from which it appears that the
statement regarding the period already undergone by him was
made on the basis of a communication sent by the
Superintendent of Central Prison, Cuddalore to the Inspector
Police Kuthallam, Police Station, Nagapattinam District. A
copy of the said communication, it appears was furnished to
the learned counsel for the appellant by the Supreme Court
Legal Services Committee. The said letter was placed by the
learned counsel alongwith the SLP paper book in support of his
plea that the appellant was not required to surrender as he
had already undergone imprisonment from 26th July, 2004 till
7th May, 2005. The SLP was on that basis numbered and listed
before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
statement made before this Court suggesting that the
appellant had already undergone eight months’ imprisonment,
was entirely based on the communication mentioned above. In
3
support he relied upon an English translation of the relevant
portion of the letter in question which reads as under:
“Pursuant to the order, the above convict underwent
imprisonment from 26.7.2004. Subsequently as per
the order made in C.A No.72/04, 73/04 Dt.29.4.2005,
he has been released on bail and basing on the bail
bond No.1145 Dt.5.5.05 he has been released from this
prison on 7.5.2005.”
6. It was further submitted that although the statement was
found to be factually incorrect by the High Court in terms of
the enquiry report submitted by it, the error was referable
entirely to the communication which was taken by the counsel
as a credible official document. There was at any rate no
intention of misleading this Court or obtaining an order by
misrepresentation of facts.
7. The appeal in question was filed through the Supreme
Court Legal Services Committee. Learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellant was also engaged by the Committee
only. The requisite documents for filing of the appeal also
appear to have been furnished to the counsel by the office of
the Committee. The communication to which we have referred
4
above was one of the documents that was furnished to the
counsel for the appellant and formed part of the SLP paper
book. The original of the communication is in Tamil. The
correctness of the English translation was verified by this
Court with the help of a Tamil knowing member of the Bar and
found to be accurate. Relevant paragraph from the
communication which we have extracted above does create an
impression that the appellant was taken into custody on 26th
July, 2004 and released only on 7th May, 2005. This period
works out clearly `eight months’. Learned counsel for the
appellant was, therefore, misled into making a statement that
the appellant had undergone eight months’ imprisonment on a
bonafide assumption which was on further enquiry not found
to be factually correct. In the circumstances we do not
consider it necessary to issue any further direction in the
matter based on the report received from the High Court.
8. The only other question is whether we ought to recall the
order passed by us in the appeal upholding the conviction of
the appellant and reducing the sentence awarded to him to the
period already undergone. As noticed above, the appellant has
5
undergone 13 days’ sentence as against one month’s
imprisonment awarded to him. Having regard to the
circumstances of this case and keeping in view the fact that
the offence in question was committed nearly 10 years back
the period already undergone by the appellant should, in our
opinion, suffice.
9. In the light of what we have stated above, while we
accept the report received from the High Court, we close these
proceedings without any further directions in the matter.
……………………………..J.
(CYRIAC JOSEPH)
……………………………..J.
New Delhi (T.S. THAKUR)
November 14, 2011
6
