Maintainability of the petition filed by accused under TADA Act.

The accused in Cr. No. 9 of 1991 have filed these petitions under S. 482, Criminal Procedure Code praying for direction to the respondent to permit the petitioners to be interviewed by their advocate.

2. Brief facts are; The respondent has registered the case in Crime No. 9 of 1991 in connection with the murder of former Prime Minister Mr. Rajiv Gandhi and 15 others. Originally the case was registered for offences under sections 302, 307 and 326, IPC and S. 3 and 5 of the Explosives Act. Later, on 31-5-1991; offence under S. 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 was also added. Then again, on 12-7-1991, Sections 4 and 5 of the above Act were added as offences committed. A. Sundaram, the petitioner in Crl. O.P. 5830 of 1991 was arrested on 2-7-1991 and produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chingleput. Porarivalan, the petitioner in Crl. O.P. 5831 of 1991 was arrested on 18-6-1991 and produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Chingleput. Thje Chief Judicial Magistrate has remanded the petitioners and had granted police custody for the petitioners for 30 days from the respective dates of production before him. Now they are kept under the custody of the respondent. In the above back drop, the petitioners have come forward with this petition under S. 482, Criminal Procedure Code praying for direction to the respondent to permit the petitioners to be interviewed by their advocates.

3. Mr. S. Doraisamy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon S. 303, Criminal Procedure Code (which I shall hereinafter refer to as "the Code") and Art. 22(1) of the Constitution of India for putting forth the claim of the petitioners to be interviewed by their advocate. Section 303 Criminal Procedure Code reads as follows.

"303. Right of person against whom proceedings are instituted to be defended. - Any person accused of an offence before a Criminal Court, or against whom proceedings are instituted under this Code, may of right be defended by a Pleader of his choice."

Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India reads as follows.

" 22(1) No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice." *

Article 22(1) is in part III of the Constitution of India whereunder Fundamental Rights of a citizen of India and enumerated.

4. Mr. S. Doraisamy, the learned counsel contended that by virtue of S. 303 of the code and by virtue of Art. 22(1) of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are entitled to get the direction, as prayed for. He also relied upon the ruling reported in 1966 Supp. SCR 239 : 1966 CrLJ 1521) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shobharam. In it, it was held that under Art. 22(1), a person arrested has the constitutional right to consult a legal practitioner concerning his arrest and a person who has been arrested as well as one who though not arrested runs the risk of loss of personal liberty as a result of a trial, have the constitutional right to be defended by an advocate of their choice. Mr. S. Doraisamy, the learned counsel banks upon the provisions in the Code viz., Section 303 and as well as Art. 22(1) of the Constitution of India to get the direction prayed for.

5. Per contra, Mr. P. Rajamanickam, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that the case is registered against the petitioner under sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (which I shall hereinafter refer to as "TADA Act") and that the jurisdiction and power of the High Court under the Code in respect of offences under T.A.D.A. Act are taken away by the provisions of the said Act and as such the petitioners cannot rely upon S. 303 of the Code to seek this relief. He further contended that since the power of the High Court under the Code with respect to the offence under T.A.D.