G SHYAMALA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under S. 482, Cr. P.C. for issue of directions to the Director General of Police, Madras, or the Special Branch or C.I.D. Branch of Police, Madras, to investigate the cause of death of the petitioner's husband, Pulacar Gunasekaran.

(2.) The averments found in the petition have to be stated in brief for the disposal of this petition. The petitioner Shyamala had married the deceased Pulavar Gunasekaran in or about 1972. Two children named Vennila aged about 13 years and Senbaga Pandian aged about 11 years were born out of the wedlock. The petitioner's husband was an active social worker, trade union leader and a staunch member of the A.I.A.D.M.K. party. About three years prior to April, 1985, when this petition was filed in this Court, the Government had arranged for starting a Cooperative Spinning Mill at Uttanagarai in Dharmapuri District. The Government had also appointed one P. K. Periyaswamy as the Managing Director. The said Periyaswamy and the petitioner's husband became very friendly and the latter used to spend most of his time in the company of the former. The petitioner's husband was elected as the Special President of the Spinning Mill Workers Union. As days passed on, the friendship between the two led to several evils including dishonest money making.

(3.) The petition states, that the petitioner was personally aware, that her husband was made a middleman to collect huge amounts to be paid to the Managing Director towards appointment of workers, staff and for other considerations etc. Therefore, the petitioner's husband was aware of the huge wealth accumulated by Periaswamy and his wife, who professed Meivazi Salai faith. The petitioner claims to be in possession of a letter written by her husband in his own hand writing disclosing the unaccounted money and property acquired by Periaswamy. A rift arose between the petitioner's husband and Periaswamy and thereafter they were at loggerheads. Naturally it resulted in enmity, ill-will and unpleasant interludes leading to defamatory gossips. Only on the instigation of Periaswamy, when they were friendly, the petitioner's husband had collected huge amounts from several unemployed persons assuring them of a job and had paid such collections to Periaswamy after deducting his meagre commission. Periaswamy neither offered jobs for those persons nor returned the money taken. The reckless behavior of Periaswamy put the petitioner's husband to untold suffering.