VASANTHA Vs. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ST. THOMAS MOUNT, CHENGAI MGR DISTRICT AND INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMBARAM POLICE STATION TAMBARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER herein has moved this Court for a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ, on allegations, inter alia, that when on 28.2.1994 at 8:30 p.m., a police party allegedly headed by some high ranking police official raided the area in Indira Colony, Tambaram, where the petitioner lives in a hut and arrested one Vempuli, her son, Murthy, wanted to know from them, who they were and in what connection they arrested Vempuli, and the police personnel 'dissatisfied with her son's question beat him and pushed him into the van. She tried and requested them to release her son, but they refused to release her son. She has alleged that when her son was so taken in custody by the said police party, she visited Tambaram Police Station and requested the 2nd respondent herein to release him. The 2nd respondent, however told her that they (Tambaram Police) were not connected with the above raid and they had not arrested her son, Murthy. The 2nd respondent advised her to verify with other police stations and the petitioner enquired about her son with the police officials attached to (1) Chromepet Police Station; (2) Chitalapakkam Police Station; (3) Pallavaram Police Station; (4) Meenambakkam Police Station; (5) Beerkarani Police Station; (6) Selaiyur police Station; (7) Madipakkam police station; and (8) Adambakkam police Station. But her running from one police station to another, brought no specific information at all. She finally went to the office of the Director General of Police at Mylapore, and sought an enquiry and when they also did not give proper reply, she sent petitions to the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. Having found, however, no response from the police and the Executive, she continued her search to know finally on 7.3.1994 that the raid, in which Vempuli was arrested, was conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Chengai MGR District and that her son Murthy was taken in custody by him, i.e. the Superintendent of police, St. Thomas Mount, Chengai MGR District.

(2.) SHE has then alleged : -

(3.) ORDINARILY , on such a statement of the respondents that on the date of hearing of the petition, petitioner's son was already a free person, we would have chosen to dispose of the application as infructuous. In the instant case, however, we noticed inherent and intrinsic evidence that Vellore Taluk Police had visited Tambaram with a view to apprehend Vempuli and Moorthy (petitioner's son) on 28.2.1994 and that Moorthy in fact was in their custody, according to them, from 7/8.3.94. When he was found moving under suspicious circumstances within the limits of Vellore Taluk Police along with Vempuli, he was apprehended under Section 41(2) (which appears to be a mistake for section 41(1)) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, produced before a Judicial Magistrate at Vellore for the alleged offence under section 64 of the Madras City Police Act, and on such production, petitioner's son was released after admonition, as he accepted the guilt and according to the petitioner, in illegal custody, having been picked up at Tambaram on 28.2.1994. To satisfy our conscience, accordingly we directed the production of the records from the Court of the learned Magistrate and after receipt of the records, also sent for the Magistrate to verify whether the records received in Court, were the entire records or something was not produced before us. Since we are informed that the entire records have been produced before us, we are constrained in the instant proceeding, to observe that the respondents have made an attempt to hoodwink the Court by advancing as a plea of defence the alleged arrest of the petitioner's son on 7/8.3.94, in Vellore Taluk Police Station limits under section 41(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the alleged offence under Section 64 of the Madras City Police Act and we record with pain that a Judicial Magistrate has played into their hands in recording as a final disposal on production before him of the alleged accused arrested for the offence under Section 64 of the Madras City police Act, by an order, which is as follows: -