LAKSHMI Vs. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Lakshmi is the mother of Velu, who is A-1 in C.c. 3 of 1993, pending on the file of First Additional Designated Court, Madras. On 14/9/1993, Designated Court framed 11 charges against Velu and A-2 Sisubalan, which include commission of offence punishable under TADA (P) Act, 1987 S.3 S.3 S.4 S.5 S.6 of. Other offences alleged are punishable under the provisions of <ACT>Indian Penal Code, 1860</ACT> Railway Act and Explosive Substances Act.

(2.) This is not the first time, that the petitioner has chosen to approach this Court, on behalf of her son Velu, for at least from the records placed before us, she had invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court, on four earlier occasions.

(3.) We deem, it necessary to state the details- of those writ petitions and the orders passed thereon, for we are unable to exclude an impression, that every time, same grounds are sought to be put forth for a decision before this Court, whether taken in the memorandum or not, and the ultimate purpose appears to be intended, to delay the progress, in trial. Even in the instant Habeas Corpus Petition, though grounds taken in the memorandum are very limited, Mr. R. Sankarasubbu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the instant petition as well as in the earlier petitions, has placed a huge variety of, submissions, most of them decided in the earlier petitions and a few of them fresh for our consideration. Even at the outset, we must state, that it will not be fair either for the petitioner or her counsel to put forth the same contentions which have been the subject-matter of vindicating by this Court, for we do not sit in appeal over those decisions rendered by other Division Benches of this Court. If the petitioner or her counsel stood aggrieved by those orders, the remedy for them would certainly be elsewhere and not in this Court over again by mere repetition of the gamut of submissions made and considered earlier, by this Court.