P RAVICHANDRAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Ramachandran, friend of the detenu/co-accused, has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition, seeking for a direction to the respondent-Deputy Superintendent of Police, Q Branch, CID, Cuddalore, to produce detenu Peter @ John Peter, son of Pichamuthu, concerned in C. C. No. 9 of 1994 on the file of the Designated Court-II under TADA (P) Act, 1987, Chennai, and set him at liberty.

(2.) BRIEF facts are stated hereunder:-According to the petitioner, detenu/co-accused Peter @ John Peter concerned in C. C. No. 9 of 1994 on the file of the Designated Court-II under TADA (P) Act, Chennai, was arrested on 19. 11. 2000 and remanded to judicial custody, however, he is kept in Jail for over five years. Other co-accused by name Kalai @ Ravichandaran and Punniamurthy @ Varatharajan were enlarged on bail by Designated Court-II, Chennai, yet, detenu John Peter was discriminated and his remand was extended mechanically from time to time without application of mind. Further, similarly placed co-accused were already released on bail. The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as TADA Act) is dead and mechanical remand under the dead law is illegal. Further, the State of Tamil Nadu passed G. O. Ms. No. 1180, Home, dated 31. 12. 1996, withdrawing TADA prosecution against all TADA Prisoners except the persons connected with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (shortly called LTTE ). According to the petitioner, the case relating to the detenu comes under the domain of 'law and order problem' arising from retaliatory murder as Kullanchavadi Police personnel murdered two villagers and to take revenge therefor, Kullanchavadi Police Station was alleged to have been attacked, whereupon, the police fired at the mob and, in that mob fury, one constable was found dead. The bomb blast case arising from the said incident could be tackled under normal law as evolved by the Government of Tamil Nadu in G. O. Ms. No. 1180 of 1996 dated 31. 12. 1996. The prolonged custody over five years is oppressive, unjust, illegal and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The case in C. C. No. 9 of 1994 is only an outcome of a revenge murder as the Kullanchavadi Policemen killed two villagers while they were in custody; hence, TADA is not attracted. Further, the detenu has turned to a new leaf and he filed an affidavit along with his wife Johnsi stating that he has no connection whatsoever with any organization much less Tamil Nadu Liberation Army (in short TNLA ).

(3.) THE respondent/deputy Superintendent of Police filed a counter affidavit, wherein, it is stated that detenu/accused Peter @ John Peter concerned in C. C. No. 9 of 1994 on the file of Designated Court-II under TADA Act was arrested on 20. 11. 2000. Since he was absconding from the date of occurrence, the Designated Court-II passed an order for proclamation. Though co-accused was released on bail, at the time of release, the trial in the above case was not commenced. But, in the above case, the prosecution examined 58 witnesses and closed their side on 04. 10. 2005 itself. The defence did not take any effective steps in spite of allowing of the recall petition to cross examine more than 44 witnesses including 6 eyewitnesses so far. As per the direction of the Supreme Court in Karthar Singhs case (reported in 1994 SCC Crl. 899), the State Government constituted a review committee and all the pending cases were reviewed and the Government issued Government Order-1 (D) No. 1180 dated 31. 12. 1996 and the cases wherein the accused are not the supporters/sympathisers of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam were ordered to be transferred to the regular court. Except the cases in C. C. No. 6/94 (Villupuram Town Police Station Crime No. 50/93) and C. C. No. 9/94 (Kullanchavadi Police Station Crime Number 346/93), the TADA Act offence cases were withdrawn. The act of the petitioner and other accused clearly attracted the offences under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the TADA Act, 1987, and they are the active members of the Tamil Nadu Liberation Army and also the supporters/sympathisers of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam. The hand written pamphlets and printed pamphlets recovered from the scene of crimes at Villupuram Municipal Office Gandhi Statue at Athur and at Kudavasal Congress Office clearly disclosed that the petitioner and others are the supporters of the LTTE. Even after expiry of the TADA Act, as per the Saving Clause, the cases relating to the petitioner and others could be proceeded as if the said Act did not expire. Earlier petition filed by the petitioner and other accused were dismissed by this Court. There is ample evidence against detenu John Peter, more over, the prosecution closed their side and the accused can very well agitate before Designated Court-II and get rid of the case. Even otherwise, the accused is in judicial custody and not in illegal custody; hence, he is not entitled to the relief prayed for in this Petition.