JUDGMENT S. NAGAMUTHU, J. 1. The respondents are accused in S.C. No. 71 of 2011 on the file the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu. The petitioner/State has come up with this original petition challenging the order dated 08.07.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge directing to issue summons to Shri T. Rajendran, I.P.S. the then Commissioner of Police, Chennai City as a defence witness. 2. The facts of the case would be as follows:- One Shri Ramesh (P.W.4) is a business man and a resident of Anna Nagar, Chennai. His son, Shri Keerthivasan, during the year 2010 was studying in DAV School at Mogappair. On 01.11.2010, Shri Keerthivasan had gone to school in a car. By about 03.30 p.m. P.W.4's driver Shri Govindarajan had gone to the school in the car belonging to P.W.4 to take the child. After the school time was over, Shri Keerthivasan came out of the school and he was returning in the car. At some distance of the school, the car was intercepted by two persons brandishing knife. Shri Govindarajan stopped the car. They forced into the car and directed Shri Govindarajan to turn the car towards the road which branches of towards left. Then, they pushed Shri Govindarajan out from the car and kidnapped the child along with the car. Shri Govindarajan soon informed the same to P.W.4 over phone. Then, P.W.1 wanted Shri Govindarajan to rush to Mogappair, J.J. Nagar Police Station. P.W.4 also rushed to the police station. At that time, he received a call from a cell phone informing him that the child was in the custody of the persons who spoke over mobile phone. The caller warned Shri Govindarajan not to go to the police station and he warned that in the event P.W.4 had gone to police station they would kill the child. However, P.W.4 had managed to give a complaint upon which the present case in Crime No. 112 of 2010 was registered for alleged offences under Sections 363, 365, 364(A), 386, 506(ii) IPC and 465, 468, 471, 114, 109 IPC r/w 465, 468, 471 IPC r/w 34 IPC. 2.1 Even thereafter, P.W.4 was receiving repeated phone calls demanding ransom. Initially the demand was for a sum of Rs. 3.00 crores, but, finally, the culprits reduced the same to Rs. 1.00 crore. P.W.4 agreed to give the said amount. After he kept Rs. 2.1 Even thereafter, P.W.4 was receiving repeated phone calls demanding ransom. Initially the demand was for a sum of Rs. 3.00 crores, but, finally, the culprits reduced the same to Rs. 1.00 crore. P.W.4 agreed to give the said amount. After he kept Rs. 1.00 crore ready, he was waiting for the phone call. Accordingly, he received a phone call from the same person. The caller warned him that he should not come with police or anybody else. But, P.W.4 told him that since he was carrying Rs. 1.00 crore, he required the help of others. The caller in a way agreed for the same. Then, when the call again came, P.W.4 told the caller that he was ready with cash. The caller confirmed the car number in which P.W.4 was to go and the caller wanted him not to disconnect the phone call and instructed him to move the car from his house on the road leading towards right side. P.W.4's friend by name Sri Thirumavalavan sat on the back seat of the car with cash and one Sri Anbazhagan, yet another friend of P.W.4, drove the car. The caller continued to be on line and gave direction for the driver to drive the car to the destination. Accordingly, the car reached a particular place where two persons were standing near a motor cycle. Both of them were wearing helmet in order to conceal their identity. They wanted P.W.4 to come out of the car with cash and give the cash to them. But, P.W.4 told the culprits that he would give money only after seeing his son. One of the culprits spoke to him over phone again and told him that his son was in the Maruti Swift car, which was parked on the 5th Street of Anna Nagar. P.W.4 found the car parked there. Then, the culprits opened the car by using a remote control. P.W.4 went near the car and then opened the dicky. The child came out of the car dicky. Then P.W.4 signalled to Sri Thirumavalavan to handover the money to the culprits. Accordingly, he gave. Then, they returned to the police station and informed the happenings. 2.2 On the other side, on registering the case, P.W.28, the then Inspector of Police, J.J. Nagar Police Station took up the case for investigation. A special team of police was formed to nab the culprits. Accordingly, he gave. Then, they returned to the police station and informed the happenings. 2.2 On the other side, on registering the case, P.W.28, the then Inspector of Police, J.J. Nagar Police Station took up the case for investigation. A special team of police was formed to nab the culprits. The car belonging to P.W.4 in which the son of P.W.4 was kidnapped was found by the police near Sivan Koil. From the said car certain belongings of the son of P.W.4 were recovered by the police. The special police team headed by P.W.28 had a strict vigil to nab the culprits. They came to know that P.W.4 had rescued the child. At 03.30 p.m. on 02.11.2010, P.W.28 met P.W.4 and enquired about the happenings. During the course of investigation, the accused were arrested on 03.11.2010 at 08.00 a.m. On such arrest, they confessed to their guilt. On their confessions, cash of Rs. 50 lakhs was recovered from the house of the Accused Vijay. Then another sum of Rs. 50 lakhs was recovered at the instance of Accused Prabhu. Few more material objects were also recovered. At about 04.45 p.m. P.W.28 took up the accused and the recovered objects to the Office of the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, where a press meet was conducted. (The details of the press meet will be discussed a little later) Then, both the accused were sent for judicial remand. 2.3 On a petition made by P.W.28, the learned Magistrate ordered police custody of the accused from the evening of 08.11.2010 to evening of 11.11.2010. During the said custody, further statements of the accused were recorded and some more recoveries of material objects were also made. After the interrogation, the accused were produced before the learned Magistrate on 11.11.2010 and again police custody was obtained till 15.11.2010. Interrogation was continued, confession was recorded and some more materials were also recovered at the instance of the accused. They were again produced before the learned Magistrate on 15.11.2010 for judicial remand. On completing the investigation, charge sheet was laid against the accused. 2.4 The case was committed for trial to the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur. By order dated 11.03.2011 made in Criminal O.P. No. 29798 of 2010, this court transferred the case for trial to the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu. That is how, the case is now tried by the said court. 2.4 The case was committed for trial to the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur. By order dated 11.03.2011 made in Criminal O.P. No. 29798 of 2010, this court transferred the case for trial to the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu. That is how, the case is now tried by the said court. 2.5 During trial, after the evidence on the side of the prosecution was over, when the accused was called upon to lead defence evidence, they cited three witness by name Sri Ramaraju, Sri Sudalaiyandi @ R. Selvaraj and Sri T. Rajendran. The 1st Witness Sri Ramaraju is none other than the father of the 1st Accused. The 2nd witness Sri Sudalaiyandi @ R. Selvaraj is a reporter working in Sun TV Network. The 3rd witness is Sri T. Rajendran, IPS, who was the then Commissioner of Police, Chennai City and presently the Additional Director General (Prisons), State Human Rights Commission. 2.6 The respondents/accused filed Criminal M.P. No. 1832 of 2014 before the trial court seeking issuance of summons to the above said three witnesses. A counter was filed by the Public Prosecutor opposing the same. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the said petition in its entirety and directed issuance of summons to all the three witnesses. 2.7 Subsequently, Sri Sudalaiyandi @ R. Selvaraj was examined as D.W.1. While so, the State has come up with this petition under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. challenging that part of order of the learned Sessions Judge directing issuance of summons to 3rd witness Sri T. Rajendran, I.P.S. That is how, the present petition is before this court. 2.8 As I have already pointed out, so far as that part of the order of the learned Sessions Judge directing issuance of summons to the witnesses Sri Ramaraju and Sri Sudalaiyandi @ R. Selvaraj is concerned, the State is not aggrieved and so that part of the order is not under challenge in this original petition. 2.9 The respondents/accused in their petition had stated reasons for summoning Sri T. Rajendran, I.P.S. as defence witness in the following circumstances as according to them his evidence would be very much essential for them to prove their innocence. 2.9 The respondents/accused in their petition had stated reasons for summoning Sri T. Rajendran, I.P.S. as defence witness in the following circumstances as according to them his evidence would be very much essential for them to prove their innocence. 2.10 As I have already narrated, on 03.11.2010, before the accused were taken to the court for initial remand, P.W.28 had taken them along with cash allegedly recovered from them to the Office of the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, where the then Commissioner of Police Sri T. Rajendran, I.P.S. had arranged for a press meet at about 04.30 p.m. A large number of both print and electronic media reporters were present. D.W.1 Sudalaiyandi @ R. Selvaraj, a reporter of Sun TV Network was also present along with video camera. In the said press meet, Sri T. Rajendran, I.P.S. produced both the accused, exposed them to the video cameras which were telecast on TV channels and gave a long interview. P.W.28 and two more witnesses were also present. They were also exposed to the press and video cameras. Sri T. Rajendran, I.P.S. gave a long interview narrating as to how the police had cracked the crime and arrested the accused. P.W.4 also gave interview to the press. The press meet went on for a long time. Thereafter, the accused were produced before the jurisdictional court. Subsequently, the accused were put up for test identification parade on 19.11.2010 in which including the witnesses who were present during press meet, a total number of four witness identified both the accused. 2.11 During cross examination of P.W.4 as well as P.W.28, the compact discs containing the recording of the entire press meet were marked as Exs.D.1 to D.4. As a matter of fact, the compact discs were played in open court for the benefit of P.W.28 and after seeing the same when he was further cross examined, he had admitted about the press meet and the statement made by Sri T. Rajendran, I.P.S. He had also admitted that the accused were shown to the live cameras and the same was made to telecast. He had also admitted that the witnesses were also present during the same. 2.12 According to the respondents/accused, the examination of Sri T. Rajendran, I.P.S. is very much essential for them to elicit certain facts which would either prove or probabilize their innocence. He had also admitted that the witnesses were also present during the same. 2.12 According to the respondents/accused, the examination of Sri T. Rajendran, I.P.S. is very much essential for them to elicit certain facts which would either prove or probabilize their innocence. But, in the counter filed by the State before the trial court it was stated that the press meet was not a part of investigation. It was further stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated that press reports regarding on going criminal matters are matters which extraneous and therefore summoning Sri T. Rajendran, I.P.S. as a witness would be a wastage of time of the court. It was also contended that since Sri T. Rajendran, I.P.S. was not the part of the investigating team and since the investigating officer has already been examined summoning him as witnesses is irrelevant. The trial court negatived the said contentions of the petitioner herein/State and ordered issuance of summons to Sri T. Rajendran, I.P.S. That is how the State is aggrieved. 3. I have heard the learned Public State Prosecutor for the petitioner/State and Mr. N.R. Elango, the learned senior counsel for the respondents/accused and also perused the records carefully. 4. There is no denial of the fact that such a press meet was conducted by Sri T. Rajendran, I.P.S. after arrest of the respondents/accused and before they were produced before the learned Magistrate for remand. The entire press meet was videographed by TV Channels and they were telecast on TV channels. There is no dispute that Exs.D1 to D4 are the compact discs containing the recording of the said press meet. In respect of certain statements made by Sri T. Rajendran, I.P.S. touching upon the arrest of the respondents/ accused, their statements, the conduct of P.W.4 and few more events which happened during the investigation, according to the respondents, the examination of Sri T. Rajendran, I.P.S. is essential. The trial court has found favour with the said plea. In my considered opinion too, the trial court was right in doing so. 5. Essentially, fair trial means, it should be fair in real sense and not fanciful. Every opportunity should be afforded to the accused in a fair manner to defend himself. Even non-citizens who have come down to this country and committed crimes on this land too enjoy such a fundamental right to have fair trial. 5. Essentially, fair trial means, it should be fair in real sense and not fanciful. Every opportunity should be afforded to the accused in a fair manner to defend himself. Even non-citizens who have come down to this country and committed crimes on this land too enjoy such a fundamental right to have fair trial. It is needless to say that even Ajmal Kazab, a citizen of Pakistan who came down to India with his own team of terrorists and conducted deadly attacks killing many citizens of this country and caused extensive damage thereby wagging war against the nation for quite some time, was given fair trial by affording every opportunity to him when he faced the trial. This country which has enormous faith in rule of law, human rights and the constitutional norms has never failed even to an inch to deny such a fair trial even to an enemy. The history will show as to how this country has been fair in providing fair trial to every person who is facing the prosecution irrespective of his status and the heinous nature of the crime. 6. History shows that the Tamil Nadu Police have proved their mettle during the past that they are not inferior to any other police. In the case on hand, there is no doubt that during the year 2010, when this occurrence was reported, it had created a lot of tension and sensation in this part of the country. When these two respondents were exposed to the media, both print and electronic and introduced by no less a person, then the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, as the culprits, the people started paying encomiums to police. The press and media made it more sensational by publicising the entire episode. The press and media certainly owe a duty to inform the people the happenings in the country in public interest. But at the same time, I should make a note of caution that driven by over enthusiasm and over zealousness the press and media should not cause any disturbance to the investigating agency so as to give room for the real culprits to escape from the clutches of law by using the media reports. The print and electronic media should, before making it public, analyse whether exhibiting certain facts or exposing identity of the culprits would serve the cause of justice. 7. The print and electronic media should, before making it public, analyse whether exhibiting certain facts or exposing identity of the culprits would serve the cause of justice. 7. In the instant case, now, the accused try to take advantage of the press meet conducted by the then Commissioner of Police. As contended by the learned senior counsel Mr. N.R. Elango, the identity of the accused should not have been exposed by the police through the print and electronic media inasmuch as the investigating officer would have been sure that the accused would be put up for test identification parade to enable the witnesses to identify them during the course of investigation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, as well as this court, have on many occasions, for several decades, been impressing upon the investigating officers as to how they should conduct themselves during the course of investigation when the accused are to be put up for test identification in a parade. The Courts have also held that the identification of the accused during test identification parade lends assurance to the identity of the accused, at the earliest opportunity for the witnesses to identify the accused before the Magistrate. Though such identification made during the course of test identification parade may not be treated as substantive piece of evidence, surely that lends assurance to the identification of the accused which is made by the witnesses in court during trial. We have seen in the past that in cases where it was required to put up the accused for test identification parade, the investigating officers used to put a mask over the accused so as to conceal his identity until he is put up in the identification parade. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has, on many occasions, pointed out that making photographs of the accused public either by showing the same to the witnesses or by publicising the same in newspapers or through any other media would create a doubt in the case of the prosecution. Therefore, it has been consistently held that in order to ensure that there is no occasion for a witness to see the accused before going for test identification parade, the accused should not be shown to the witness either in person or through any other mode like photograph, video-graph, or through press or electronic media. 8. Therefore, it has been consistently held that in order to ensure that there is no occasion for a witness to see the accused before going for test identification parade, the accused should not be shown to the witness either in person or through any other mode like photograph, video-graph, or through press or electronic media. 8. In this case, it is really distressing that the identity of the accused were disclosed to the press and electronic media who in turn have made it public. The then Commissioner of Police, though he claims to have been not a part of investigation, has made statements to the press and electronic media which, according to the accused, are in their favour and therefore, they want to elicit those facts spoken to by him during the press meet. The Police Officers of higher rank should be aware that there should not be any kind of statement made by them in public which will cause harm to the investigation or which will give a room for the culprits to escape from the clutches of law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manu Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1 and Anukul Chandra Pradhan vs. Union of India and Others, (1996) 6 SCC 354 has reiterated the law as to how reporting of subjudice matter must be subject to checks and balances so as not to interfere with the administration of justice. 9. Under Article 22(3) of the Constitution of India, an accused who is arrested could be kept in the custody of the arresting officer for a maximum period of only 24 hours. This mandate has been included in Chapter III of the Constitution of India as a fundamental right. This has been again reassured in Section 167 of Cr. P.C. The time of 24 hours given is only the maximum time required for the police to have the arrestee in his custody. It is often mistaken by the police that the arrestee could be kept in custody for a period of 24 hours even though there is no need to keep him so. It is needless to point out that as soon as the interrogation is over and his presence is no more required for custodial interrogation or for investigation he should be immediately transmitted to the nearest Magistrate. It is needless to point out that as soon as the interrogation is over and his presence is no more required for custodial interrogation or for investigation he should be immediately transmitted to the nearest Magistrate. The law empowers the arresting officer alone to keep the arrestee in his custody and he shall not carry him to every place where ever he wants unnecessarily and hand him over the custody of some other officer including a superior police officer. 10. It is our experience that this is not the first case where such kind of shortcomings have been noticed. Day in and day out, this court, in many cases, more particularly, in sensational cases, notices that unnecessary publicity is given through print and electronic media about the details of the investigation, which ultimately affects the administration of justice. The investigation is a secret affair and at times such secrecy alone leads to success in the investigation. In this regard, let us have a quick look into the legal position in other countries. 11. In New Zealand, in Attorney General vs. Tonks, 1934 NZLR 141 (FC), it was held that publication of photographs of an accused before trial if the identification was likely to be in issue would amount to contempt. Blair J. observed: “If a photograph of an accused person is broadcast in a newspaper immediately after he is arrested, then such of the witnesses who have not then seen him, may quite unconsciously be led into the belief that the accused as photographed is the person they saw. The fact that a witness claiming to identify the accused person, has seen a photograph of him before identifying him, gives the defence an excuse for questioning the soundness of the witness’s identification.” 12. In Australia in Attorney General (NSW) vs. Time Inc Magazineco Limited, C.A. 40331 of 1994, dated 15.9.1994, where the weekly magazine who published the photo of Ivan Milat, accused in a serial murder case, in the front page after his arrest and Gleeson CJ observed that this would seriously interfere with identification by witnesses when the person is lined up with others. It could be strongly argued for the accused that “that the identification in the lineup was useless, or atleast of very limited value. It could be strongly argued for the accused that “that the identification in the lineup was useless, or atleast of very limited value. It would be argued that, because of what is sometimes described as displacement effect, there was a high risk that at the time of the line-up, the witness was performing an act of recognition not of a person who had been seen by the witness on some previous occasion but of the person in the photograph. 13. In R vs. Clarke, Ex p Crippen, (1910) 103 LT 636, Crippen was arrested in Canada but not formally charged, but a publication appeared in England in Daily Chronicle, as cabled by its foreign correspondent, that Crippen admitted in the presence of witnesses that he had killed his wife but denied the act of murder. The publication was treated as contempt. Darling J observed that “Anything more calculated to prejudice the defence could not be imagined. 14. In AG (NSW) vs. TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd. (1990) 20 NSWLR 368, in the case of a murder of two women and a child at two distant locations, the suspect surrendered to the police, was interviewed, confessed and was then taken to the scenes of the crimes by the police where he demonstrated various significant matters to them. On these visits, the police and the suspect were accompanied by a journalist including television crews. At one point, the television crew travelled in the same aircraft with the suspect and the police, to the scene of the crime. The police held a press conference at which it was announced that the suspect had confessed. These matters were all broadcast on television news. The NSW Court of Appeal stated that the tendency of this publication was to create a risk of prejudice to the accused at the trials. 15. Referring to these cases and after having extensively analysed the legal position in India and in the other countries, the Law Commission of India in its 200th Report has stated as follows:- “There are also a large number of decisions of the Indian Courts falling under these very headings. We do not want to add to the bulk of this Report by referring to them. In our country, lack of knowledge of the law of contempt currently shows that there is extensive coverage of interviews with witnesses. We do not want to add to the bulk of this Report by referring to them. In our country, lack of knowledge of the law of contempt currently shows that there is extensive coverage of interviews with witnesses. This is highly objectionable even under current law, if made after the charge sheet is filed. This Chapter is, in fact, intended to educate the media and the public that what is going on at present in the media may indeed be highly objectionable. Merely because it is tolerated by the Courts, it may not cease to be contempt.” 16. Let us not allow the disease to spread and then to look for Doctors to cure. I am only hopeful that the Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu and Director General of Police of Government of Tamil Nadu will issue general directions to all the police officers throughout the State apprising the legal position that they should not unnecessarily expose the identity of the accused and the details of the investigation and the materials objects collected during the course of investigation so as to make them public. The Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu and Director General of Police will also arrange to conduct in service trainings for the police officers to apprise them of the above legal position. 17. The narration of the facts and the law, which I have made herein above, would go to show that Sri T. Rajendran, I.P.S. is a necessary witness, for the defence to examine in order to prove certain facts. When the State has got no objection for the examination of the reporter of SUN TV Network as D.W.1 which is evident from the fact that the State has not challenged the same, it is not understood as to why the State has got objection for the examination of Sri T. Rajendran, I.P.S. alone. I apprehend that the official status of Sri T. Rajendran, I.P.S. may be the cause as to why the State is objecting to the summoning of Sri T. Rajendran, I.P.S. when it has got no objection for summoning and examining the reporter of SUN TV Network who has spoken to about the very same facts. 18. I apprehend that the official status of Sri T. Rajendran, I.P.S. may be the cause as to why the State is objecting to the summoning of Sri T. Rajendran, I.P.S. when it has got no objection for summoning and examining the reporter of SUN TV Network who has spoken to about the very same facts. 18. I wish to recall at this juncture that our great visionary, freedom fighter and our first Prime Minister, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru came to a trial court and gave evidence as a defence witness (vide – Bhagwan Swarup vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 682 ) while he was the Prime Minister of this great Nation. He felt that appearing before the court to give evidence was his duty as a citizen of this country and that he was a part of the justice delivery system. He did not feel, as Prime Minister of this country, that it was below his dignity to come to the court. Therefore, Sri T. Rajendran, I.P.S. de hors his official status may go to the court to depose certain facts on oath so as to assist justice delivery system to do justice. 19. In the result, I do not find any merit at all in this original petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Before concluding I wish to clarify that every observation, which I have made hereinabove, is only for the purpose of this petition and the trial court shall not be influenced by any of the observations. I am sure that the trial court will independently assess the evidence of both sides and objectively appreciate the evidence and dispose of the case.