AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioners, viz., Dr. L.Prakash, M.Saravanan, Vijayan @ Vijayakumar and Asir @ Asir Gunasingh, who are A.1 to
A.4 respectively in Sessions Case No. 9 of 2004 pending on the file of V Fast Track Court, Chennai, filed the above habeas corpus petitions for
quashing of S.C. No. 9 of 2004 and set them at liberty.
Heard Mr. Karuppan, learned Counsel for the petitioners in detail.
Before going into the grievance expressed by the petitioners and the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, it is relevant to point
out that the very same petitioners filed similar, identical habeas corpus petitions, viz., HCP. Nos. 249 to 252 of 2006 before this court. We verified
the earlier habeas corpus petitions, in those petitions wherein the petitioners have prayed for quashing of S.C. No. 9 of 2004, pending on the file of
V Fast Track Court, Chennai. By order dated 16.03.2006, after consider ring the contentions raised and hearing the very same counsel, viz., Mr.
Karuppan as well as Mr. Jayakumar, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents and taking note of the fact that the prosecution is to examine
only six witnesses and also after finding that there is no prima facie case for quashing S.C. No. 9 of 2004, dismissed all the four habeas corpus
petitions.
As said earlier, the very same petitioners filed the present petitions seeking for quashing of S.C. No. 9 of 2004. In the present affidavits filed in
support of the above petitions, it is mainly contended that because of the fact that the trial in that case is being closely monitored by a learned single
Judge of this Court, the petitioners are very much prejudiced, which necessitated them to file these petitions. Apart from the above claim, Mr.
Karuppan, learned Counsel also contended that there is no provision, which empowers the learned Judge to monitor any case, particularly S.C.
No. 9 of 2004. He further contended that the present Bench has power to review the earlier order or directions issued by the learned Judge
monitoring the trial of S.C. No. 9 of 2004.
We considered the grievance expressed by the petitioners as well as the arguments advanced by Mr. Karuppan.
Considering the claim made in the affidavit in those petitions, after hearing the learned public prosecutor for the respondents, we disposed of the
earlier habeas corpus petitions at the admission stage itself, after finding that there is no prima facie material to quash S.C. No. 9 of 2004. In that
finding we made a reference to the direction of the learned Judge in Criminal O.P. No. 25095 of 2003 dated 24.0 2.2006. Though it is contended
that this Court cannot monitor the trial of any proceedings, considering the grievance expressed and for early disposal of the criminal trial, such
directions have been issued by the learned Judge in the said original petition. This cannot be faulted with. It is not the case of the petitioners that
any direction has been issued causing prejudice to any of the parties. The direction is only with regard to early completion of the trial.
Coming to the merits of the claim in the present petitions, as stated earlier, the perusal of the affidavit shows that except the grievance relating to
monitoring the case by learned single Judge, no other claim has been made. In view of our detailed order dated 16.03.2 006 and of the fact that
even on the date when we disposed of earlier habeas corpus petitions, the prosecution has to examine six witnesses and in the absence of any
change of circumstance, we are not inclined to entertain the above petitions. Consequently, all the petitions are dismissed and connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.