Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 3246
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.V. MURALIDARAN, J.
Murugan - Appellant
Versus
State, Rep By Deputy Superintendent of Police, Q Branch CID - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 1466 of 2017
Decided on : 29-10-2018
Advocate Appeared:
R. Sankarasubbu, Adv., G. Harihara Arun Somsankar, Adv.
The duty of a lawyer to defend accused persons and the lack of evidence to establish the accused's involvement in terrorist activities.
Headnote:
Criminal Revision Case - Discharge of Accused - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Section 227 of Cr.P.C. - [Sections 13(1)(b), 20, 38 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967] - The court discussed the admissibility of confession statements, prima facie evidence, and the absence of materials to implicate the accused. The decision highlighted the duty of a lawyer to defend accused persons and the lack of evidence to establish the accused's involvement in terrorist activities.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a practicing advocate, sought discharge from a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, where he was accused of furthering the activities of a banned organization. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner had handed over electronic materials and pamphlets to the first accused with the intent to further the activities of the banned organization.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no prima facie evidence to implicate the petitioner and that the confession statement of the co-accused was not sufficient to establish the petitioner's involvement in terrorist activities. The court also emphasized the duty of a lawyer to defend accused persons and the lack of evidence to establish the accused's involvement in terrorist activities.
Issues: The issues revolved around the admissibility of confession statements, the duty of a lawyer to defend accused persons, and the absence of prima facie evidence to implicate the accused in terrorist activities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the confession statement of the co-accused was not sufficient to establish the petitioner's involvement in terrorist activities. It emphasized the duty of a lawyer to defend accused persons and the lack of evidence to establish the accused's involvement in terrorist activities.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Case was allowed, and the petitioner was discharged from the case.
M.V. MURALIDARAN, J.
1. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 18.9.2017 passed in Crl.M.P.No.45 of 2017 in S.C.No.71 of 2017 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri.
2. The petitioner herein has filed Crl.M.P.No.45 of 2017 under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. praying to discharge him from S.C.No.71 of 2017 pending on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he is a practising Advocate and he has been impleaded in S.C.No.71 of 2017 only on the strength of the confession statement given by the first accused, in which, the first accused alleged to have confessed during the police custody on 14.1.2017 that the petitioner handed DVD player, tape recorder, modem and some pamphlets and booklets to him at Madurai Mattuthavani Bus stand for the use of banned CPI (Maoist) party.
4. According to the petitioner, he used to practice before various Courts in Tamil Nadu and in particular, he defended the false cases foisted against innocent persons branding them as Maoist, including the co-accused person in the present case. Only with an ulterior motive to prevent the petitioner from defending the innocent Maoists, he has been falsely implicated in the case on hand. According to the petitioner, the final report failed to attribute and/or make out prima facie case against the petitioner. Hence, he filed the petition under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. to discharge him from S.C.No.71 of 2017.
5. Resisting the discharge petition, the respondent filed counter stating that the incriminating materials, electronic items, pamphlets seized on the basis of the confession statement of the first accused would clearly reveal the common object and intention of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner was a member of the banned CPI (Maoist) organization. The prosecution has made out a prima facie case against the petitioner. There were no valid grounds to discharge the petitioner and the grounds stated in the discharge petition were untenable and unsustainable in law and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. Upon consideration of the rival submissions, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, dismissed the discharge petition. Assailing the same, the petitioner has filed the present Criminal Revision Case.
7. I heard Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.G.Harihara Arun Somasankar, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.
8. Challenging the order of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, in his revision, the petitioner has raised the following grounds:
(1)The petitioner is a practising advocate who defended Maoist accused in Sessions trial and, therefore, with an ulterior motive he was put behind bars nearly for one year.
(2)The confession of co-accused is not admissible as admitted by the trial court.
(3)Having held there is no material against the petitioner that he is a member of gang under Section 20 of the Act and the whole case falls flat on the said ground.
(4)The trial Court having held the alleged materials seized from the first accused were not incriminating in any manner leading to violence or terrorist activities or unlawful activities and there is no evidence showing the involvement of the petitioner in the case, the petitioner ought to have been discharged.
(5)Taking totality of the circumstances, there is no evidence against the petitioner.
9. Resisting the Criminal Revision Case, the respondent has filed the counter stating that even after knowing that co-accused Mahalingam @ Nondi Palani was an absconding CPI (Maoist) cadre, the petitioner had facilitated financial support and other sorts of help to him through other accused persons A1 and A4 and thereby has indulged in furthering the activities of the banned CPI (Maoist) organization which has been declared as a terrorist organization as per the provisions of the Unlawful Activiti
