Back
2007 Supreme(Mad) 2695
Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
S. Sethu Raja
Versus
The Chief Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu, St. George Fort, Chennai & Others
W.P.(MD)No.3888 of 2007
Decided On : 28-08-2007
For the Petitioner:M. Thikvijayapandian, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2, D. Sasikumar, G.A, R3, R. Rajagopal, R4 to R7, P. Rajendran, G.A. (Criminal Side), R12, S. Jayakumar for CBI, Advocates.
The judgment established the jurisdiction of Indian courts over offences committed by Indian citizens outside India and emphasized the obligation of the State to arrange for the repatriation of the deceased migrant worker's body.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Investigation into Death - Indian Penal Code, Section 3, Section 4, and Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 188 - The court directed the authorities to investigate the death of the petitioner's son in Malaysia and to make arrangements to bring the body to India for performing the obsequies.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's son died in Malaysia, and the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the authorities to investigate the death and make arrangements to bring the body to India for the funeral rites.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the death occurred in Malaysia and directed the authorities to register a First Information Report and investigate the case. It also directed the authorities to make arrangements to bring the body to India.
Issues: The main issue was the investigation into the death of the petitioner's son in Malaysia and the arrangements for bringing the body to India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Indian Penal Code, Section 3 and Section 4, and Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 188, to establish the jurisdiction of Indian courts over offences committed by Indian citizens outside India. It also considered the obligation of the State to arrange for the repatriation of the deceased migrant worker's body.
Final Decision: The court directed the authorities to investigate the death and make arrangements to bring the body to India for performing the obsequies.
The petitioner is an agricultural Collie. He has four sons and a daughter. One of his sons went to Malaysia on a tourist visa in March 2004.
2. The petitioner claims that his son was originally appointed by the 8th respondent in his Biscuit Factory and that the petitioners son fell in love with the 8th respondents daughter. According to the petitioner, the respondents 8 to 11 murdered his son in Malaysia in January 2007 and that the body is kept in the mortuary in Malaysia. On the above said premise, the petitioner claims to have sent telegrams to the President of India, the Prime Minister, the Ministry for External Affairs, the Chief Minister and the High Commission of Malaysia, seeking action against the culprits and also to make arrangements to bring the body of his son from Malaysia. Finding no response to the telegrams, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition seeking the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 7 or the 12th respondent to investigate into the death of his son and also to take steps to bring the dead body from Malaysia for the purpose of performing the obsequies.
3. Heard Mr. M. Thikvijayapandian, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. D. Sasikumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. P. Rajendran, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents 4 to 7.
4. The Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Town who is the 7th respondent in the writ petition has filed a report. According to the said report, the Inspector made enquiries with one M. Shiek Sabir who is the 11th respondent in the writ petition and came to know from him that the petitioners son allegedly committed suicide and that the Malaysian Police is investigating into the same in Bukit Puchong (Balai) Police Station No.Report Crime No.BKT PUCHONG/001045/07 dated 28.01.2007.
5. The learned Government Advocate also filed a report from the Village Administrative Officer to the effect that the respondents 8, 9 and 10 are not residing in India but residing in Malaysia.
6. The learned Government Advocate also produced the copy of a letter written by the Deputy Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, Chennai-9 addressed to the Second Secretary, High Commission of India, Kualalumpur in his Letter No.71834/CITZ.II/2007-1, dated 27.07.2007 by which he has requested the High Commission to get a copy of the Postmortem Report relating to the son of the petitioner who died in Malaysia.
7. Mr. R. Rajagopal, learned counsel representing the Consulate General of Malaysia in India filed a letter dated 26.06.2007 addressed to him. In the said letter, the Consulate General of Malaysia has advised the petitioner to take recourse to any of the two alternatives namely, either to make a report to the Police Department in Malaysia or to seek an assistance through the High Commission of India at Kualalumpur for making a Police report and undertaking a further investigation. The Consulate General of Malaysia has also stated that they will not be in a position to render any assistance by themselves and that they also enjoy an immunity from any Court proceedings.
8. All the above facts on which there is no dispute, confirm one thing namely, that the petitioners son died in Malaysia. The petitioner claims that his son was murdered at the instance of respondents 8 to 11 since his son was in love with the daughter of the 8th respondent. But the 11th respondent has given a statement to the 7th respondent that it was a case of suicide. However, the petitioner who is a poor agricultural Collie, could not either get the body of his son sent to India or could get a thorough investigation done into the case. Therefore, he has filed the present writ petition.
9. Admittedly the death of the petitioners son occurred in Malaysia. If the allegations of the petitioner are true, an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code has been committed, in Malaysia, by respondents
