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