AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 251 wordsN. Ananda, J.—When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned State Public Prosecutor has made available the documents to show that the detenue has been arrayed as accused in C.C.No. 240/2009 before the Special District Court for E.C.Act and NDPS Act Cases at Madurai The Additional District Judge, Principal Special Court, HDPS Act Cases, Madurai has issued body warrant along with a covering letter to the Superintendent of District Prison at Tumkur to produce the detenue before the said Court on 4.11.2011.
The learned Counsel appearing for petitioner would submit that from the body warrant, it is not clear as to whether the detenue is required to be produced before the said Court as a witness or as an accused.
We have gone through the contents of the Prisoners Transfer Warrant and a letter dated 1.6.2010 which was addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Tumkur, wherein it is shown that one Mahalingam and detenue are shown as ahsconding accused in C.C.No. 240/2009 pending before the Special District Court for E.C.Act and NDPS Act Cases at Madurai.
In the circumstances, we hold that detenue is not under illegal detention. The Superintendent of Police, District Sub-Jail, Tumkur would submit that in terms of Prisoners Transfer Warrant issued in C.C.No.240/2009 by the Additional District Judge, Principal. Special Court, NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, the detenue would be produced before the said Court on 4.11.2011. The petitioner can seek appropriate remedy before the said Court. With these observations, petition is dismissed.
