Judgment : Invoking the inherent power of this Court under Sec.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, permission has been sought for by the petitioner to attend the proceedings of the Court of Special Judge, Poonamallee, in which the trial is going on by virtue of Secs. 482 and 327 of Criminal Procedure Code. .2. The brief facts which lead to the filing of this petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner Mr.M.V. Thomas who is a retired Director General of Police of Slate Andhra Pradesh has claimed certain facts known to him out of the personal enquiry and investigations conducted by him voluntarily about the circumstances and the cause or reason by which the former Prime Ministers of India, Sri Lal Bahadur Sastri and Smt. Indira Gandhi were assassinated and by so claiming he also expressed certain grievances about the investigation made in the assassination of the former Prime Minister of India Thiru Rajiv Gandhi and the consequent investigation made thereon charge sheeted against several accused and the designation of Special Court for the trial of the said cause under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act, following the commencement of the trial in a specially constituted court at Poonamallee and accordingly the trial is going on. 3. The main grievance and prayer of the petitioner as identified from the affidavit filed by him and in the petition is that he is not allowed to be present during the trial of the above proceedings, being conducted in the specially constituted Designated Court at Poonamallee. As a citizen of this country and a responsible top police officer and having worked in the internal affairs of the Investigation Registry he claims that he is entitled to know in what manner the proceedings are conducted and how the trial is being carried on in this regard in the light of the information and witnesses available before the Specially Designated Court. He would allege further that in view of the various provisions of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act, shortly known as Tada Act, the proceedings are since going on in specially constituted and Designated Court, the rules framed hereunder by Presiding Judge of the court strictly prohibiting the attendance of the other common public, including the petitioners and all members, reporters and soon. In short, the trial of the said case is being carried on strictly in camera and not allowing any public in the interest of public safety protection and welfare of the citizens and country’s safety and so on. With the result, he was not allowed even to near the said court by the respondent, who is conducting the prosecution. Therefore, as a citizen and as high ranking Police Officer, though retired, under Art. 226(7) of the Constitution of India the petitioner would claim that he is entitled to attend the proceedings of the specifically Designated Court. .4. While filing a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent, namely, the Special Investigation wing, which not only investigated the assassination of the former Prime Minister Shri Rajiv Gandhi and the assassination of Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri and Smt. .Indira Gandhi but also conducted the trial before the Designated Court at Poonamallee, it was contended inter alia that the petitioner being worked as the top rank police officer of the State is expected to fully aware of the implication of the various enactments and the procedural lines, particularly the provisions of Sec. 16(3)(a) of the T.A.D.A. Act as well as the procedural law laid under Sec. 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure coupled with the extraordinary inherent power vested under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. While denying the allegations pertaining to the facts and lapses of the other cases it was contended that it is not proper for the petitioner to come forward with such insinuation in this petition against such of the cases which were already disposed of by the highest court of this country. While doing so, it was contended that the petitioner is not entitled to have any right of audience or presence before the proceeding going on in the specially Designated Court by virtue of the said procedure framed and being adopted by the Designated Court under the T.A.D.A. Act, 1987, It was also pointed out under Sec. 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and has also incorporated in form and substance while the T.A.D.A. Act, 1987 was amended by-Act 43 of 1993 which came into force on 25. 1993, particularly Sec. 10(1) of the Principal Act. 1993, particularly Sec. 10(1) of the Principal Act. By virtue of the said amended Act, since the Designated Court has passed specific orders in Crl.M.P.No. 306 of 1992 dated 20.5.1992 under Sec. 16(3) of T.A.D.A. Act and subsequent modification of the said order, the petitioner, is not entitled to claim any right of presence while the proceeding is going on in the specially Designated Court. 5. The various case laws and the Judicial pronouncements held in this regard clearly show that the Designated Court alone has got ample power to regulate proceedings and the petitioner like an ordinarily citizen in the regular trial under the court cannot claim any special right in watching or attending the proceedings before the trial inquestion, which is now going on in the Designated Court. In short, the petition was resisted on the ground that it is not at all maintainable under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. In the light of above rival positions and circumstances the only point that arises for consider action in this case is: whether the petitioner is entitled to have a right of witnessing the trial, which is now going on before the Designated Court under the T.A.D.A. Act. 7. Before proceeding further and to discuss the facts in hand it has become necessary for me to advert it to the legal aspects of involved in this case. Sec. 16 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 prior to the amendment introduced there to read like this: "16. Protection of witness: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, all proceedings before Designated Court shall be conducted in camera: Provided that where the Public Prosecutor so applies, any proceedings or part thereof may be held in open court. .(2) A Designated Court may, on an application made by a witness in any proceedings before it or by the Public Prosecutor in relation to such witness or on its own motion, take such measures as it deems fit for keeping the identity and address of any witness secret. .(2) A Designated Court may, on an application made by a witness in any proceedings before it or by the Public Prosecutor in relation to such witness or on its own motion, take such measures as it deems fit for keeping the identity and address of any witness secret. .(3) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of Sub-sec.(2) the measures which a Designated Court may take under that sub-section may include: .(a) the holding of the proceedings at a place to the decided by the Designated Court: .b. the avoiding of the mention of the names and addresses of the witnesses in its orders or judgments or in any records of the case accessible to public. .c. the issuing of any directions for securing that the identity and addresses of the witnesses are not disclosed: .d. that it is in the public interest to order that all or any of the proceedings pending before such a court shall not be published in any manner. .(4) Any person who contravenes any direction issued under Sub-sec.(3) shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees. 8. This section of law by virtue of Act 43 of 1993 dated 25. 1993, has been amended and the amended section is extracted as hereunder. "In Sec. 16 of the Principal Act, for Sub-sec.(1) the following sub-section shall be substituted, namely: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code the proceedings under this Act may be held in camera if the Designated Court so desires. This principal Act as well as the amendment provided thereto is categoric and total with regard to the power vested with the Designated Court to conduct the trial before it in camera if so desires which would mean clearly and clinchingly that the trial cannot be conducted in the public court and that at the same time it is also imperative that the Designated Court if so desires can specifically regulate its mode of procedure as provided under Subclauses (2) and (3) of the Principal Act. It is pertinent to note that this Sec. 16 as amended starts with a non obstante clause, by which the Criminal Procedure Code has been specifically excluded. 9. It is pertinent to note that this Sec. 16 as amended starts with a non obstante clause, by which the Criminal Procedure Code has been specifically excluded. 9. Now, I shall refer to Sec,327 of the Code, presumably on the basis of which the petitioner is claiming his right to the present before the proceedings conducted in the Designated Court, which run like this: "(1) The place in which any criminal court is held for the purpose of inquiring into or trying any offence shall be deemed to be on open court, to which the public generally may have access, so far as the same can conveniently contain them. Provided that the Presiding Judge or Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, order at any stage of any inquiry into, or trial of, any particular case, that the public generally or any particular person, shall not have access to, or be or remain in, the room or building used by the court. .(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-sec.(1) the inquiry into the trial of rape or an offence under Sec. 376, Sec. 376-A, Sec. 376-B, Sec. 376-C or Sec. 376-D of the Indian Penal Code shall be conducted in camera. Provided that the Presiding Judge may, if he thinks fit, or on an application made by either of the parties, allow any particular person to have, access to or be or remain in the room or building used by the court. .(3) Where any proceedings are held under Sub-sec.(2) it shall not be lawful for any person to print or publish any matter in relation to any proceedings, except with the previous permission of the court“. 10. A casual reading of this section of law merely shows that even during the sessions trial held before an ordinary court the mode of procedure to be followed in the court shall be regulated by the Presiding Judge though it was expected to go on with the trial in a public place providing general access to the common man or the witnesses. A combined reading of the entire section clearly demonstrate the power vested with the Presiding Judge that he has vested with the full power to restrict the persons or any one nor regulate the procedure in a particular manner in the interest of public and safety. A combined reading of the entire section clearly demonstrate the power vested with the Presiding Judge that he has vested with the full power to restrict the persons or any one nor regulate the procedure in a particular manner in the interest of public and safety. If I say so even Sec. 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applicable to all the sessions trial may not be available in toto to the petitioner in this case, for the simple reason that the power has been vested with the Judge, who regulate the procedure. However, there is a vital distinction between this section of law and Sec. 16(3)(a) of the T.A.D.A. Act. By amending the T.A.D.A. Act, particularly to Sec. 16, by Act 43 of 1993, the rigour of the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code has been totally taken away by the provisions of the T.A.D.A. Act. Therefore, by virtue of the provisions of Sec. 16(3)(a) of the T.A.D.A. Act, the Designated Judge is totally and absolutely entitled to regulate its procedure and it cannot be challenged in this proceedings under Sec. 482 of the Code. 11. By virtue of the counter-affidavit filed in this case, it has been brought to the notice of this Court on behalf of the respondent that the Designated Court in Criminal M.P.No. 306 of 1992 on 20.5.1992, by virtue of Sec.16(3) of the T.A.D.A. Act 1987, has passed the following order: ”In the result, the petition is allowed as prayed for. Under Sec. 16(3) of T.A.D.A. Act an order is passed to keep the addresses and identity of 179 witnesses indicated in red ink as Code No. S.101 to S.279 in the list of witnesses enclosed to the final report as secret by avoiding the mentioning of names and addresses of the said witnesses in the orders or judgments of this Court or in any records of the case accessible to the affect that the identity and addresses of 179 witnesses indicated in red ink in the list of witnesses Code named in S.101 to S.279 are not to be disclosed and kept secret. It is further ordered to the effect that none of the proceedings pending before this Court shall be disclosed by any of the parties or advocates representing them or any of the witnesses either to the press or to any unauthorised persons, and in the public interest it is ordered that all or any of the proceedings pending before the Designated Court with regard to the trial of Rajiv Gandhi assassination case shall not be published in any manner.“ In partial modification of the order passed by the Designated Court in Crl.M.P.No. 306 of 1992, dated 20.5.1992 the Court in Crl.M.P.No. 80 of 1992 filed by the Regional Manager, United News of India, Madras, has held as under: ”In the result the application in Crl.M.P.No. 80 of 1993 is partly allowed. The order dated 20.5.1992. in Crl.M.P.No. 306 of 1992 of this Court is modified to the following effect that with regard to the opening of the case under Sec. 226 of Crl.P.C, and with regard to the arguments on the plea of discharge under Sec. 227 of Crl.P.C, and with regard to the arguments for framing of charges under Sec. 228 of Crl.P.C. which go together and which are interlinked and interconnected with one another, can be published on behalf of the United News of India on condition that the names addresses and identity of the witnesses,whether coded or general witnesses in this case, should not be published or disclosed. The authorised reporter of the United Trust of India as prayed for in the application in Crl.M.P.No. 8 of 1993 is permitted to cover the abovesaid proceedings under Secs. 226, 227 and 228 of Crl.P.C. only on the abovesaid condition as and when those proceedings under Secs. 226, 227 and 228 of Crl.P.C. will be held in open session. In other respects the application filed by the United News of India in Crl.M.P.No. 80 of 1993 is dismissed." 12. It is to be noted that the respondent had pleaded total ignorance and knowledge of passing of the above order. But however, in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, the order passed by the Designated Court on par with Sec. 16(3) of the T.A.D.A. Act has been enumerated. It is to be noted that the respondent had pleaded total ignorance and knowledge of passing of the above order. But however, in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, the order passed by the Designated Court on par with Sec. 16(3) of the T.A.D.A. Act has been enumerated. Therefore, from the said aspect it is very clear that for the sake of public and witnesses safety and in the interest of public and in exercise of the powers conferred,the learned Designated Judge, has passed suitable orders and thereby regulate on old proceedings which is going before me. If this is so, then in my considered view, the petitioner cannot have any grievance in this regard. In Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, J.T. (1994) 2 S.C. 423; the Supreme Court in paragraphs 292 to 295 of its judgment has held as follows: "292. No doubt, the trials are traditionally open which is an indispensable attribute of the criminal justice: This characteristic flowed not merely from the public interest in seeing fairness and proper conduct in the administration of criminal trials, but, more important, the "therapeutic value" to the public of seeing its criminal laws in operation,, purging the society of the outrage felt with the commission of many crimes, convincingly demonstrated why the tradition developed and is maintained. This is the accepted practice of guaranteeing a public trial to an accused as having its roots in the English Common Law heritage. But, however, though it is an indispensable attribute of the Criminal Justice, in exceptional circumstances there cannot be any legal ban in having the trial in camera. Though the criminal justice prevailing in our country recognises and accepts the practice of only open trial, there is an exception to such trial as contemplated under Sec. 237(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure falling under Chapter XVIII with caption "Trial before a Court of Session’ which provides an exemption to the general practice. The relevant sub-section reads: "Every trial under this section shall be held in camera if either party thereto so desires or if the Court thinks fit so to do." 293. The relevant sub-section reads: "Every trial under this section shall be held in camera if either party thereto so desires or if the Court thinks fit so to do." 293. Under the "General Provisions as to enquiries and trials’ felling under Chapter XXIV there is a specific provision namely, Sec. 327 with a caption ‘Court to be open’according to which the inquiry and trial of any offence should be held in an open Court, to which general public may have access. However, under the proviso, the discretion is given to the Presiding Judge or Magistrate to regulate the public generally, or any person in particular in having access to, or be or remain in, the room or building used by the Court. An exemption is given for the open Court trial under Sec. 327(2) which is as follows: "Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-sec(1) the inquiry into and trial of rape or an offence under Sec. 376, Sec. 376-A Sec. 376-B, Sec. 376-C. or Sec. 376-D of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be conducted in camera. Provided that the presiding Judge may, if he thinks fit, or on an application made by either of the parties, allow any particular person to have access to or be remain in, the room or building used by the court." 294. We feel that no detailed discussion against the challenge of Sec. 16(1) is required since a new sub-section is substituted to the original Sec. 16(1) of the principal Act by the Amendment Act 43 of 1993. The new sub-section reads thus: "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, the proceedings under this Act may be held in camera if the Designated Court so desires." 295. By this new substituted sub-section now the discretion is given to the Designated Court either to hold the proceedings in camera." 13. In the light of the special extraordinary power vested with the Designated Court by the Legislature under Sec. 16 of the T.A.D.A. Act and as amended and the consequent confirming the validity of the same by the Supreme Court in the above referred case law, I find no difficulty at all to say that the Designated Judge is duty bound to act only in accordance with the provisions and powers conferred upon him under the T.A.D.A. Act alone and no other Act. In short the amended Act, as I have observed already contains a non obstante clause which excludes the applicability of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If this is the position one cannot dispute as is not expected to canvass that this Court can regulate the proceedings under the T.A.D.A. Act in a Designated Court by virtue of its inherent power under the Code. If that venture is being made with the Court concerned, I am totally unable to presume myself to countenance with the same for any reason. For the reasons aforesaid, I am fully satisfied to hold that this Court finds every difficulty and bar to interfere in this case by way of giving directions to the petitioner to take part in the proceedings going on before the Specially Designated Court under the T.A.D.A. Act. I do not find any merits in the petition nor any other legal aspects has been canvassed before me in favour of the petitioner. 14. In the result, for all the reasons aforesaid, I am not in a position to accept the grievance entertained by the petitioner as genuine and accordingly I hereby dismiss this petition.