SHANMUGHAM Vs. Ï¿½QÏ¿½ BRANCH POLICE THANJAVUR TOWN THANJAVUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition under Sec.482, Crl.P.C. praying for permission to have the assistance of an Advocate of his choice at the time of interrogation and any statement that may be obtained from him by officials of the respondents.

(2.) THE allegations in the petition are briefly as follows: THE petitioner is a permanent resident of Kodikadu in Vedaranyam Taluk. He is not involved in any case. He has to connection with L.T.T.E. or in any other orgainisation. One week ago, personnel from ?Q? Branch of the first respondent came to the house of the petitioner during night time and wanted the pet: tioner to go over to their office. THE petitioner was not in the house at that time. Continuously the personnel from ?Q Branch are coming to petitioner s house and warning the inmates that petitioner must appear before the first or second respondent for interrogation. Respondents 1 and 2 are taking; many persons into custody and are keeping them in prolonged confinement. THE petitioners has therefore genuine apprehension that he may be implicated in a nonbailable offence. He has no objection for appearing before the first or second respondent and answer questions. He fears that he may be illtreated. THErefore, in exercise of his fundamental rights under Arts.21 and 22 (1) of the Constitution of India., the petitioner seeks a direction to appear before the respondent along with an advocate of his choice. That right is a constitutional entitlement. Hence the petition.

(3.) MR.P.Rajamanickam the learned Government Public Prosecutor appearing for the third respondent, would contend that the petitioner cannot insist on the presence of the lawyer at the time of interrogation and relied upon the ruling rendered in W.A.No.1454 of 1987 and connected writ appeals by Division Bench of this Court, in para 89, the learned Judges have slated as follows: ?The rights guaranteed under Art.22 (1) of the Constitution, did not include a right to the accused to have the presence of his counsel during interrogation by the police.? He also relied upon the ruling reported in Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Madras v. V.M. Premkumar and V.N. Ravi Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, 1990 L.W. (Crl.) 247. Since I have held that petition under Sec.482 of the Code is not maintainable, this question is not considered in this petition.