C NATESAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions are at the instance of the accused in Crime No. 1431 of 1998 on the file of the first respondent police station. In the first petition, there are three respondents namely the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch (R-1); State of Gujarat by Sub-Inspector of Police, Detective Crime Branch, Ahmedabad (R-2) and lastly the Superintendent of Central Prison, Chennai (R-3). In the second petition, there are six respondents. Besides the respondents in the first case, who are arrayed as Respondents 1, 2 and 6 respectively in this case, there are three other respondents namely State of Karnataka by Inspector of Police, Bangalore (R-3); State of Andhra Pradesh by Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, Hyderabad (R-4) and State of Maharashtra by Inspector of Police, Crime Branch (R-5). The relief asked for in both the petitions is, identical and it is as follows :

(2.) The persons, who are trying to take custody of the petitioner from the Central Prison, are the second respondent in the first petition and the Respondents 2 to 5 in the second petition. I heard Mr. C. A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. R. Shanmuga-sundaram, learned State Public Prosecutor for all the respondents, Mr. Barot, a senior counsel from the Supreme Court of India and as a party in person in his capacity as the informant in the crime stated to have been registered in Ahmedabad against the petitioner; Dr. Surat Singh, a senior counsel from New Delhi for and on behalf of the investors in common as well as Mr. P. Kannan Babu, learned counsel representing the investors in common.

(3.) It appears that there is a complaint on the file of the first respondent/police station in Madras, which stands registered as X Crime No. 1431 of 1998 for offences under Ss. 409 and 420 read with S. 109 of the Indian Penal Code. I amnot going into the details of the allegations found in the First Information Report against the petitioner. Likewise, it is also made known to this Court that crimes have been registered against the petitioner in various parts of this country. The sum and substance of the accusation against the petitioner appears to be that he has not repaid various sums of money running to several crores of rupees, collected and accepted by him as Fixed Deposits and under other schemes. The petitioner was arrested in the crime at Madras and he appears to be in judicial custody now. Courts of competent jurisdiction in States, other than the State of Tamil Nadu, appear to have issued Prisoner Transfer warrants under Section 267 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking the petitioner's transfer and production before the Court which issued the said Prisoner Transfer warrant, which hereinafter would be called as "P. T. warrant".