Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2829 (MAD)

John Britto v. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Home Secretary, Chennai

2013-08-05

C.S.KARNAN

body2013
Judgment : 1. The above petition filed by the writ petitioner against the respondents for declaration propounding the non-implementation of 'Cr.P.C. (Amendment) Act 2008 and Cr.P.C. (Amendment) Act 2010' in the State of Tamil Nadu, as being ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and constitute a SIT (Special Investigation Team) comprising sleuths from outside Tamil Nadu to conduct time-bound court-monitored investigation into the cases foisted against him by the Tamil Nadu Police. 2. The writ petitioner stated in his affidavit that the Coimbatore police have registered 5 cases one after the other within a short span of time due to political vengeance. Therefore, this Court, by its order dated 30.05.2012, has given a direction to the Home Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu to appoint a police officer, not below the rank of Inspector, to conduct a detailed enquiry about the said criminal case. Accordingly, the first respondent herein / the Home Secretary has appointed an Inspector of Police, who conducted an enquiry and submitted a report before the Court. This report reveals the actual stage of the case, mode of occurrence and involvement of the accused. Now, all the three cases are pending before the concerned Magistrates and all the cases are ready for trial. 3. After receiving this report, this Court has given an opportunity to the petitioner to raise objections, if any. It is seen that, so far, no objection has been filed on the said report of the Inspector of Police. This Court also does not find any shortcomings in the process of the criminal case. Therefore, this Court is fully satisfied with the prompt response shown by the first respondent, viz., the Home Secretary of the State, who had complied with the direction of this Court and is also satisfied with his Subordinate Police Officers, who are dealing with the said case against the writ petitioner since there is no lapse on the side of the concerned investigation police officers. Therefore, the writ petition is closed. No costs.