NALLARASAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN both these petitions, the petitioner, namely, Nallarasan claiming to be friend of the detenues seeks direction to the respondent-Deputy Superintendent of Police, Q-Branch, Villupuram and Cuddalore for production of one Venkatesan, TADA prisoner now confined at Special Sub Jail, Poonamallee and Peter @ John Peter and Uthirapathy, confined at Sub Jail, Poonamallee before this Court and set them at liberty.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that Venkatesan, son of Pandurangan is facing trial under the provisions of TADA Act on the file of Designated Court-II, Chennai and subsequently transferred to Special Court, Poonamallee. The other two persons, namely, Peter @ John and Uthirapathy were also facing same charges and their cases are also pending before the same Court. It is the grievance of the petitioner that after the transfer of then Presiding Officer, there is no Presiding Officer and remand was extended from time to time by the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, who had no power to remand the detention under Section 309 Cr. P. C. Mr. R. Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the Habeas Corpus Petitions, would contend that since there is no Presiding Officer in the designated Court and in view of the fact that the detenues are languishing in jail for several years, direction may be issued for release of all the three detenues. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that in the case relating to Venkatesan (detenu in H. C. P. No. 528/2005) recording of evidence was over and only argument has to be made by both sides. He also submitted that in the case of Peter @ John Peter and Uthirapathy, except official witnesses, all others have been examined and even the examination of those witnesses is likely to be over shortly. Further, according to him, in view of the order of the Division Bench dated 4-3-2004 made in H. C. P. Nos. 1488, 1489 and 1490 of 2003 (S. NALLARASAN Vs. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, Q- BRANCH CID, CHINGLEPUT RANGE AND TWO OTHERS) filed by the very same petitioner, dismissing similar requests relating to the very same detenues, the present petitions are liable to be dismissed.

(3.) WE have verified the earlier order of the Division Bench dated 4-3-2004 annexed along with the counter affidavit filed by the respondent. It is not in dispute that the said Habeas Corpus Petitions were filed by the very same petitioner seeking similar relief, namely, release of the above mentioned accused. It further shows that the Division Bench, after considering the contentions raised and perusing various decisions of the Supreme Court, dismissed all the 3 petitions. Though Mr. R. Sankarasubbu submitted that there is no constructive res judicata and the petitioner is entitled to pursue these petitions, on going through the earlier order of the Division Bench, we are unable to accept the claim of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Apart from this, as stated earlier, it is seen from the learned Public Prosecutor that in the case of Venkatesan, except argument, examination of witnesses have already been concluded. In the case of other two detenues, only official witnesses have to be examined. It is also brought to our notice that by G. O. Ms. No. 566-Home (Courts. II) Department dated 05-07-2005, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued a Notification conferring powers to deal with TADA cases in respect of the present incumbent, namely, Thiru T. Ramasamy, V Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Chennai. Accordingly, there may not be any impediment in early disposal of those cases. Considering all these factual details and in the light of well considered earlier decision of this Court in H. C. P. Nos. 1488, 1489 and 1490 of 2003 dated 4-3-2004, we do not find any merit in the claim made by the petitioner; consequently both the Habeas Corpus Petitions are dismissed.