IN THE MATTER OF PERIASAMY, SENTHIL KUMAR AND KAMARAJ-DETENU THANGAMANI Vs. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, Q BRANCH, TRICHY, TRICKY DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these two petitions for habeas corpus, the petitioner is one and the same person, the points involved in both the matters are similar and hence we dispose of these cases by this single order.

(2.) IN Habeas Corpus petition No. 1328 of 1995, the prayer of the petitioner is to issue a writ of habeas corpus, directing the respondent -The Inspector of Police, Q Branch, Trichy, Trichy District, to produce the detenu Periasamy and Senthil Kumar before this Court and set them at liberty and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.

(3.) ON behalf of the respondent, one K. Pattabiraman, Inspector of police, 'Q' Branch, C.I.D. Trichy, has filed a counter affidavit, in which he has sworn that the habeas corpus petition is not maintainable either in law or on the basis of the averments made and the contentions raised in the affidavit filed in support thereof. He has submitted that C.C.No.18 of 1994 was pending before the Designated Judge at Coimbatore and subsequently after the constitution of the Designated Judge at Coimbatore and subsequently after the constitution of the Designated Court at Trichy pursuant to the provisions of S.9(l) of the TADA Act, the abovesaid case was transferred to the Trichy Court on 26.7.1995 and the case is pending in C.C.No.45 of 1995, before the Designated Judge, Trichy, He has denied the allegation that the transfer of the case from the Designated Judge at Coimbatore case from the Designated Judge at Coimbatore to the Designated Judge at Trichy was mala fide and it was necessitated under bonafide circumstances. He has pointed out that as on 12.2.1993, five Designated Courts had been constituted and each one of them was allotted certain cases for trial. Except the Designated Court No. I, Madras, which was exclusively allotted for the trial of Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case, the rest of the four designated courts heard before them a number of cases for trial. On 17.2.1995, a communication was addressed by the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, to the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Madras -9, Appraising the necessity for the constitution of the newly designated court at Trichy and also reallotting the cases which were pending before the five designated courts as on 17.2.1995 and the said designated court was constituted in accordance with S.9(l) of the Act and the cases from the Districts of Trichy, Pudukkottai, Thanjavur and Nagapattinam Quaid -E -Milleth District were allotted to the said court for disposal. He has further submitted that in respect of the cases relating to Ammapet P.S.Cr.No.429/94, Mannargudi PS Cr.No.8924/94, Koottar P.S.Cr. No. 1151/94, Burgur P.S.Cr. No. 14/93; 16/93; 18/93; and 20/93 and Eriyur P.S.Cr. No. 190/93 were pending in the Designated Court No. II, Madras, the examination of witnesses had not yet commenced as on 17.2.1995 and these cases were pending with the Designated Court No. II, Madras. Inasmuch as these cases involved the examination of the witnesses residing in far of destinations like, Thanjavur, Coimbatore, Periyar etc., and considerable hardship would be caused to these witnesses to go over to Madras, they were allotted to the Designated court at Trichy, so as to avoid such hardship to the witnesses. The affidavit further reads that the present case in C.C.No.45/95 which was previously pending as C.C. No. 18/94 before the Designated Court at Coimbatore, had been transferred to Trichy from the point of view of jurisdiction. The transfer of case was not mala fide and it was well within the jurisdiction of the State Government to constitute the Designated Court at Trichy even after the lapse of the present TADA Act on 22.5.1995 and this is especially so in view of the saving clause contained in S.1(4) of the said enactment. He has also submitted that there is no violation of Art. 22 of the Constitution of India and pointed out that H.C.P.Nos.1073 of 1994 and 223 of 1995 already filed on behalf of these accused have been dismissed by the High Court. On these grounds, he has asked this Court to dismiss the habeas corpus petition as devoid of merits.