The main legal point established in the judgment is that the violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India regarding the arrest and handling of the interrogation of the arrestee must be supported by clear evidence to be considered in a writ proceeding.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against respondents 4 and 5 for illegally arresting and detaining the petitioner for five days from 09.08.2011 and 14.08.2011, and further directing respondent 1-State of Tamil Nadu to award appropriate compensation to the petitioner for his said illegal arrest and detention, and further directing respondent 1-State of Tamil Nadu to transfer the investigation of Crime No.741 of 2011 pending with Q Branch CID, Chennai to the Central Bureau of Investigation.

1. The relief sought for in the present writ petition is for a direction to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against respondents 4 and 5 for illegally arresting and detaining the petitioner for five days from 09.08.2011 and 14.08.2011, and further to direct the 1st respondent State of Tamil Nadu to award appropriate compensation to the petitioner for his said illegal arrest and detention, and to direct respondent 1-State of Tamil Nadu to transfer the investigation of Crime No.741 of 2011 pending with Q Branch CID, Chennai to the Central Bureau of Investigation.

2. The petitioner states that he was in firewood shop on 09.08.2011. At about 3:30 p.m, Shankar Nagar Police and Q-Branch Police came to his shop and took him first to his house and took away a torch-light from his house and thereafter they had taken the petitioner to the Police Station. In the Police Station, the petitioner found that his friend Jesu Raja was also arrested and detained. The petitioner was taken by the Police blind-fold to various police stations and ultimately, shifted to a bungalow in Neelankarai, Chennai District. The petitioner was beaten by the police time and again and was tortured to give a statement to the effect that he is responsible for the blast at the Villupuram Railway track that occurred long ago. The daughter of the petitioner sent telegrams about the petitioner''s absence to various authorities on 13.08.2011.

3. The telegrams were received by the competent authorities. However, no action was taken and again, the petitioner was assaulted by the police and he was pressurized to give statement as directed by the Police.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the case of D.K.Basu Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (1997) 1 SCC 416 has been glaringly violated by the respondents/Police. The Police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation of the arrestee should bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with their designations. The particulars of all such police personnel, who handled interrogation of the arrestee must be recorded in a register. As per the said judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India, the police officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a memo of arrest at that time of arrest and such memo shall be attested by at least one witness, who may either be a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of locality from where the arrest is made. The Hon''ble Supreme Court of India further states that the said memo of arrest shall also be countersigned by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest. No signature was ever obtained by the police personnel from the petitioner at the time of arrest of the petitioner on 09.08.2011. Since the said ruling of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India has been totally violated by the police personnel, who effected the arrest of the petitioner, the arrest of the petitioner is illegal and consequently the detention of the petitioner is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India.

5. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents strenuously objected the said contentions by stating that t