HIGH COURT LEGAL AID CENTRE REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, P.C. VARADARAJAN Vs. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KITCHIPALAYAM POLICE STATION,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition registered on a telegram purporting to have been sent by one Sarasu, wife of Perumal, Udayapatti near Kandashramam, Salem. According to the telegram her son Rajendran was taken into custody by Shanmugam, Inspector, Kitchipalayam Police Station for interrogation on 1.4.1993 in connection with a jewel theft case and that he was arrested on suspicion, illegally confined, brutally beaten and kept under illegal custody till 13.5.1993 by two policemen, whose identity was not known. He was tortured everyday and he was murdered. She was not permitted to cremate her son according to her religious rites. Police burnt the dead body of her son offering Rs. 20,000/ - as bribe to her through some panchayatdars. During inquest the Revenue Divisional Officer compelled her to give evidence as desired by the Police and she was lured that if she deposed in favour of police she would be paid Rs. 15,000/ - more as bribe. The telegram prayed for an investigation and further action through CB CID police.

(2.) THE case has been registered with High Court Legal Aid Centre, Madras represented by its Secretary, Mr. P.C. Varadarajan as petitioner. The respondents are shown as State, represented by Inspector of Police, Kitchipalayam police station, Superintendent of Police, Salem District, Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem District and the Superintendent of Police, C.B., C.I.D., Madras.

(3.) IT is too elementary to point out that art affidavit should be filed by a person who has personal knowledge about the facts or who has acquainted himself with the facts from authentic records. In fact, Order 19, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 enjoins that "affidavits shall be confined to such facts as the deponent is able of his own knowledge to prove, except on interlocutory applications, on which statements of his belief may be admitted; provided that the grounds thereof are stated." In this case, the Secretary to the High Court Legal Aid Centre has chosen to file the affidavit as if he has personal knowledge about the facts stated therein. In paragraph 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is averred that he is filing the affidavit since the mother viz., Sarasu, who sent the telegram, is not traceable. It is further stated that due to the importance of the case the petition is being filed on behalf of Rajendran. We have already noticed that the allegation contained in the telegram is that Rajendran was murdered and he was no more. In those circumstances, we are baffled as to how a Habeas Corpus petition could be filed on behalf of a dead person by the Legal Aid Centre. Further, in paragraph 9 it is stated that from the contents of the telegram whole thing looks fishy and that the inquest conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer looks suspicious. That Rajendran has died under suspicious circumstances. It is doubtful whether inquest conducted in question is on Rajendran himself or not." It is not stated anywhere in the affidavit that the deponent made an enquiry and ascertained that inquest conducted over the dead body of Rajendran was suspicious or that the Revenue Divisional Officer did not conduct any proper enquiry. Without setting out all these facts, the deponent has chosen to file a sworn affidavit containing allegations as mentioned above against responsible officials of the State Government. It is not open to any person to file an affidavit with regard to matters which are not within his personal knowledge. In particular, when the deponent is holding the post of Secretary of the High Court Legal Aid Centre, he ought not to have indulged in filing an affidavit of this type making such serious allegations against responsible officials of the Government. For that matter, he should not have made such allegations against any other individual, he be an official of the State or not. It. is stated in paragraph 9 that provisions of S. 57 of the Crl.P.C. 1973 or not followed. It is further stated in paragraph 10 that the 1st respondent, viz., State represented by Inspector of Police, Kitchipalayam Police Station, Salem has arrested the detenu in violation and not in accordance with procedure established by law within the meaning of Art. 21 of the Constitution. Apart from the fact that the said averment is wholly unintelligible, it is beyond our comprehension as to how the deponent could assert that the first respondent arrested the detenu in violation of the procedure established by law. We have already stated that the first respondent is the State represented by Inspector of Police, Kitchipalayam police station, Salem. Even that description is erroneous. An Inspector of Police cannot represent the State Government. There is a prescribed procedure for impleading the State Government as a party in proceedings like this and the officers mentioned by the relevant provisions of law should have been impleaded as representing the State Government. If the petitioner had desired to implead Inspector of Police, Kitchipalayam Police Station, he should have impleaded him as an independent party to the petition. The other portions of the affidavit are only extracts from S. 174 of the C.P.C.