Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1365 (MAD)

Intelligence Officer v. D. Ramakrishnan

2013-03-18

T.SUDANTHIRAM

body2013
Judgment : T. Sudanthiram, J. 1. The petitioner herein filed a complaint against eight accused persons before the learned Special Judge for EC & NDPS Act Cases, Coimbatore, for the offences under Section 8(c) r/w Sections 22, 23, 25, 27A, 29 and 38 of NDPS Act, 1985 and Rules 53, 53A and 59 of NDPS Rules, 1985 and punishable under Sections 22(c), 23, 25, 27A, 29 and 38 of the NDPS Act, 1985. In the said complaint, accused 2 to 7 were shown as absconding accused. The first accused was already arrested and remanded to custody. The 8th accused is the Company represented by second accused, who is the Chairman and President of the Company. The complaint was filed in the year 2008. In the year 2009, the first accused/first respondent herein had filed a petition before the trial Court under Section 317 (2) of Cr.P.C. read with Rule 17 of Criminal Rules of Practice, seeking for splitting up the case and to proceed with the trial against him, since he was languishing in jail. An order was passed by the trial Court on 12.02.2010 allowing the petition splitting up the case in respect of A.2 to A.7 and also directing the complainant to amend in respect of 8th accused so as to make the first accused to represent the company. After the case being split up, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and cross examined and P.W.4 was examined in chief examination in part. At that stage, the above Criminal Revision Case has been preferred by the complainant in the year 2012 to set aside the order passed by the trial Court splitting up the case. The said revision has been filed with a delay of 762 days. Hence, this petition, seeking condonation of delay, is filed along with an affidavit of one Superintendent, NCB Cases, South Zonal Unit. 2. Miss T. Renuka, Special Public Prosecutor for NCB, South Zonal Unit, Coimbatore District representing the petitioner in the petition filed by the complainant claims that she had been authorized to appear before the High Court and submitted that she was not the Special Public Prosecutor before the trial Court when the case was split up. If the case against the first accused is tried along with other accused, then the prosecution case would become strong and the second accused would be convicted by the trial Court. If the case against the first accused is tried along with other accused, then the prosecution case would become strong and the second accused would be convicted by the trial Court. Steps are being taken to bring all the absconding accused and put them before the trial Court. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submitted that the Special Public Prosecutor before the trial Court had opposed strongly the petition for splitting up the case and in spite of it, the trial Court had passed the order, splitting up the case. Thereafter, there was no prosecutor. The Special Court was not functioning for one whole year. Miss. Renuka Devi, learned Special Public Prosecutor for NCB, South Zonal Unit, Coimbatore, further submitted that she was authorized to appear before the Hon'ble High Court on 10.04.2012. Thereafter only, steps were taken to file a revision. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for NCB, South Zonal Unit, Coimbatore District, further submitted that very soon the absconding accused will be brought before the trial Court and hence, the splitting up the case is unnecessary. Furthermore, the trial Court could have invoked Section 299 of Cr.P.C. and proceeded with the trial even in the absence of other co-accused. Only for the said purpose, the above revision is filed. 3. Per contra, Mr.B.Sriramulu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent/first accused submitted that the first accused is in prison from 26.01.2008 and as there was no progress in the trial, the first accused had filed a petition seeking to split up the case and to proceed with the trial against him. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that speedy trial is the fundamental right of the accused and furthermore, the first respondent/first accused is languishing in jail for several years. While so, the complainant had chosen to file the above vexatious revision petition. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that there was no illegality in the order passed by the trial Court for splitting up the case, as the absconding accused have not been secured till date and no effective steps also have been taken to secure them so far and hence, the first accused cannot be put in prison indefinitely without any progress in the trial. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent/first accused also submitted that P.Ws.1 to 3, being already examined and cross examined, Section 299 of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked at this stage. 4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent/first accused further submitted that the revision petitioner is now represented by Miss. T.Renuka, Special Public Prosecutor, NCB Cases, South Zonal Unit, Coimbatore and not by Mr.N.P.Kumar, who is appointed as Special Public Prosecutor to appear for NCB cases before the High Court. 5. This Court gave notice to the learned Special Public Prosecutor Mr.N.P.Kumar, who is also present before this Court. Miss. Renuka, Special Public Prosecutor, NCB, South Zonal Unit, Coimbatore, gave a copy of authorization given by the Assistant Director, Officiating Zonal Director, and stated that she was authorized by the Assistant Director to appear in the Madras High Court in respect of the cases filed in NDPS Court, Coimbatore. 6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent/first accused submitted that only the Central Government can appoint a Special Public Prosecutor to appear before the High Court and not the officials of the department. Mr.N.P.Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor was also heard on this aspect. 7. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the records. 8. The complaint was filed in the year 2008 and the complaint is dated 03.06.2008. But the first respondent/first accused is in prison from 26.01.2008. In the complaint itself, accused 2 to 7 were shown as absconding accused. The case was split up by the trial Court only on 12.02.2010. Thereafter, only P.Ws.1 to 3 have been examined on the side of the prosecution and P.W.4 was examined in chief examination in part. Though it is contended by Miss. T.Renuka, learned Special Public Prosecutor for NCB, South Zonal Unit, Coimbatore that if the case is tried together in respect of all the accused, then only the prosecution case will become strong, this Court cannot accept the said contention since for more than four years the absconding accused 2 to 7 could not be secured. The first respondent/first accused is languishing in jail for more than five years. Keeping an accused in jail for several years without any progress in the trial affects the fundamental right of the accused and it would amount to injustice. The first respondent/first accused is languishing in jail for more than five years. Keeping an accused in jail for several years without any progress in the trial affects the fundamental right of the accused and it would amount to injustice. This Court cannot become a party to such an injustice. 9. This Court is of the view that the complainant should not have chosen to file this revision affecting the personal liberty of the first accused/first respondent herein. This Court feels that the revision preferred by the prosecution is vexatious. Under such circumstances, the delay in preferring the said revision cannot be condoned. Furthermore, the delay is also enormous. Hence, this Miscellaneous Petition, seeking condonation of delay, is dismissed. 10. This Court is not considering the aspect now as to whether Miss. T.Renuka, Special Public Prosecutor, NCB, South Zonal Unit, Coimbatore, is competent or not to appear before the Hon'ble High Court as Special Public Prosecutor.