Madras High Court
M/S.Safire Print Lab Knits And Woven ... vs S.Deepa on 4 January, 2019
Author: M.V.Muralidaran
Bench: M.V.Muralidaran
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 04.01.2019
Delivered on : 18.02.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1452 of 2018
M/s.Safire Print Lab Knits and Woven Fabric,
rep. by its Managing Director Viswanathan,
No.2/428, Uthukuli Road,
S.Periyapalayam,
Tirupur-641 607. .. Appellant
Vs.
1.S.Deepa
2.Minor Sriya
Minor rep. by next friend guardian and mother
S.Deepa
3.The Director General of Police,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Chennai.
4.The Secretary,
Home Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai.
5.The Director General of Police,
Puducherry.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
6.The Secretary,
Home Department,
Government of Puducherry. .. Respondents
(Respondents 3 to 6 suo-motu impleaded as parties
as per the order dated 04.01.2019)
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmens'
Compensation Act, against the award dated 07.05.2018 made in
E.C.No.67 of 2015 (Old W.C.No.294 of 2011) on the file of the
Commissioner for Employee's Compensation/Deputy Commissioner of
Labour, Coonoor, The Nilgiris.
For Appellant : Mr.C.E.Pratap
for M/s.T.S.Sivakumar
For Respondents : Mr.N.Manokaran
for respondent Nos.1 and 2
Mr.A.Natarajan
Public Prosecutor
assisted by
Mr.G.Ramar
Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)
for respondent Nos.3 and 5
Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandian
Addl. Advocate General
for respondent Nos.4 and 6
Mr.R.Bharathkumar
for M/s.TMF Hospital, Tirupur
http://www.judis.nic.in
3
JUDGMENT
Being aggrieved by the award of compensation of Rs.3,94,120/- passed in E.C.No.67 of 2015 (Old W.C.No.294 of 2011) on the file of the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation/Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coonoor, The Nilgiris, the appellant – Management has preferred this appeal.
2. By an order dated 09.07.2018, the appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:
“Whether the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour is correct, when he ignored the aspect of medical negligence, as pointed out in Ex.P-6 Medical Case Sheet, Ex.P-1 First Information Report and Ex.P-7 Legal Notice.”
3. Relevant facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows:
The respondents are legal heirs of the deceased A.Sasikumar, who was employed under the appellant as a Screen Exposure with a monthly salary of Rs.12,000/-. On 16.02.2010 at 3.45 P.M., when Sasikumar was working, stripper acid fell below the knees of both legs and immediately, he was taken to TMF Hospital, Tiruppur by the co- http://www.judis.nic.in 4 employees of the appellant and admitted as inpatient, wherein Dr.T.P.Saravanakumar treated him. According to the respondents, it was informed to the brother of Sasikumar viz., Jagadeswaran that some medicine was administered through injection for the pain. At about 5.00 P.M., respondent No.1 was informed by the staff of the appellant about the admission of her husband in the hospital. Immediately, she rushed to the hospital and saw her husband on the bed with a complaint of severe pain on both legs. At about 10.00 P.M., the first respondent was informed that her husband died. Regarding the occurrence, the brother of Sasikumar lodged a criminal complaint before Uthukuli Police Station and a case in Crime No.440 of 2010 under Section 304(A) IPC was registered. Stating that the husband of the first respondent sustained injuries in the course of employment and died at the hospital on the same day, the respondents have filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- under Workmen Compensation Act, 1923.
4. Resisting the claim petition, the appellant filed counter stating that at about 4.00 P.M. on 16.2.2010, the co-workers informed that Sasikumar was experiencing pain in both legs and asked them to admit in TMF hospital at Tiruppur. Accordingly, friends of Sasikumar http://www.judis.nic.in 5 admitted him in the said hospital, where Dr.T.P.Saravanakumar had attended Sasikmar and injected him a medicine through I.V. Soon after the injection, the condition of Sasikumar worsened and none of the attenders have had any knowledge about what sort of injection was put on him. It is stated that the appellant learnt that Dr.T.P.Saravanakumar administered intra venous injection of fortwin on Sasikumar. Further, it was told by the hospital authorities that it was medical negligence which caused the death of the said Sasikumar.
5. It is further stated that Sasikumar died due to asphyxia caused by administration of intra venous injection of fortwin. According to the appellant, Sasikumar had not died due to any accident or injuries occurred during and in the course of employment under the appellant. The cause of death is purely due to the medical negligence committed by the duty Doctor T.P.Saravanakumar attached with TMF Hospital, Tiruppur.
6. In the counter, it is stated that falling of striper liquid on Sasikumar had not caused his death. Stripper is a liquid solvent, commonly used in removing paint and other finishes. Any exposure or contact of the stripper liquid on human body will never cause death http://www.judis.nic.in 6 and it is a non-hazardous liquid. In fact, every employee of the appellant was provided with safety guards and hand gloves and the employees are strictly instructed to wear them during the employment. Since the death was solely due to the medical negligence of the Doctor at TMF hospital, Tiruppur, the appellant cannot be made liable for the medical negligence of the aforesaid Doctor. The death of Sasikumar was not due to any injuries sustained by him during and in the course of employment under the appellant and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
7. The first respondent examined herself as P.W.1 and one Thiru.V.Sivakumar was examined as P.W.2. Exs.P1 to P12 were marked. On the side of the appellant, Thiru.Thanigachalam was examined as M.W.1 and Exs.R1 and R2 were marked.
8. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation held that Sasikumar sustained injuries in the course of employment and had died on the same date. Therefore, the appellant is liable to pay the compensation of Rs.3,94,120/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident till the date of deposit within a period of one month http://www.judis.nic.in 7 from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
9. Assailing the award, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation failed to appreciate that Sasikumar died not as a result of an accident arisen out of and in the course of employment. He would submit that the death of Sasikumar was only due to administering of Fortwin drug through intra venous injection at TMF hospital by Dr.T.P.Saravanakumar. The learned counsel further submitted that falling of stripper liquid on the deceased had not caused his death and the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation had lost sight of the fact that stripper is a liquid solvent, commonly used in removing paint and other finishes, any exposure or contact of stripper liquid on human body will never cause death and it is a non-hazardous liquid. Stating that the reason for death of Sasikumar is due to the negligence of the Doctor, who gave the treatment at TMF hospital, the learned counsel prayed for setting aside the award of the Commissioner or Employee's Compensation.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted http://www.judis.nic.in 8 that the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation/Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coonoor after analysing the materials produced before him, rightly held that the husband of the first respondent died in the course of employment and taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- and adopting the relevant factor, awarded Rs.3,94,120/- in favour of the respondents payable with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of occurrence till the date of deposit.
11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on record.
12. The grievance of the respondents is that on 16.2.2010 at about 3.45 P.M., when the husband of the first respondent was working under the appellant, stripper acid fell below the knees of both legs and had sustained injuries and succumbed to injuries on the same day at 10.00 P.M. while in hospital. Therefore, the appellant is liable to pay the compensation.
13. The appellant has not disputed the fact that the deceased http://www.judis.nic.in 9 Sasikumar was not employed in their company and also there was no employer – employee relationship between them. In the instant case, the oral evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 clearly shows that on the date of occurrence, the deceased Sasikumar was working in the appellant's company and in the course of employment, he had sustained injuries.
14. Though the appellant contended that the death was due to the medical negligence of the Doctor of TMF hospital, Tiruppur, nothing has been produced to establish the same. Mere lodging of criminal complaint in respect of medical negligence will not absolve the appellant from its liability.
15. In a catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the evidence recorded in the criminal case and finding recorded thereon should not be used in claim cases like in the case on hand. It is well settled that the statements made before the Tribunal are made on solemn affirmation and the statement recorded in the FIR cannot be raised to a pedestal higher than that of the statement on oath. Therefore, as rightly held by the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation/Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coonoor, lodging of FIR would not in any way affect the claim made by the respondents. http://www.judis.nic.in 10
16. As per Section 3 of Employee's Compensation Act, if personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation.
17. In the case on hand, three conditions viz., (a) death or injury must be caused to workmen and said injury; (b) must have been caused by accident and (c) accident must arise out of and in course of employment, stipulated in Section 3 of the Employee's Compensation Act have been established by the respondents in maintaining the claim petition.
18. It is well settled that the Workmens' Compensation Act is a welfare legislation, earmarked to offer benefits to the workmen and hence the Court is not to insist strict proof of facts from the employees. But it does not mean that the claimants can remain without showing any material to substantiate their contention. Some convincing materials should be made available on their behalf.
19. As stated supra, in the case on hand, the respondents have http://www.judis.nic.in 11 established that the accident occurred during the course of employment and also proved the relationship between the deceased employee and the appellant employer on the date of accident. Therefore, an accident arising out of employment implies a casual connection between the injury and the accident and the work done in the course of employment. In the light of the above, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal was right in holding that the deceased Sasikumar sustained injuries in the course of employment on 16.2.2010 and being the employer, the appellant is liable to pay the compensation.
20. As far as quantum of compensation awarded by the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation/ Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coonoor is concerned, the said authority has taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- and after adopting the relevant factor i.e. 197.06, awarded Rs.3,94,120/-. Since the compensation of Rs.3,94,120/- awarded by the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation/ Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coonoor is reasonable, the same is maintained. Inasmuch as this Court is upholding the award of the Commissioner, the question of law is answered against the appellant.
http://www.judis.nic.in 12
21. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs.
22. Though the appeal is dismissed, this case turned out to be an eye-opener and it behooves this Court to make a note of some of the revelations during the course of the hearing of this case.
23. The respondent claimants asserted that, during the course of employment of the deceased K.Sasikumar with the appellant company, he sustained injuries and he was taken to TMF Hospital, Tirupur, where it is alleged that wrong treatment was given to the deceased. It is stated that a complaint has been given by one K.Jagatheeswaran, brother of the deceased, against the said Hospital authorities and FIR was registered in Crime No.440 of 2010 on 17.2.2010.
24. To ascertain the status of the criminal case, to wit, Crime No.440 of 2010, this Court, by order dated 6.12.2018, directed the Inspector of Police, Uthukuli Police Station, Tirupur District, to file a report along with all relevant documents and the authorities of TMF Hospital, Tirupur, were also directed to file a report in respect of the http://www.judis.nic.in 13 treatment given to the deceased. Such report was directed to be filed before this Court on 18.12.2018. The Inspector of Police, Uthukuli Police Station, Tirupur District and the authorities concerned of TMF Hospital, Tirupur, were directed to be present before this Court on the said date.
25. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 18.12.2018, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced a letter Na.Ka.640 of 2016, dated 8.6.2016 of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Avinasi, addressed to the Inspector, Uthukkuli Police Station, Tirupur District, informing him about closure of FIR for non-filing of charge sheet. It is seen from the aforesaid letter of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Avinasi, that 87 FIRs were closed. Serial No.7 (Crime No.440 of 2010) pertains to the present case on hand, which was registered under Section 304(A) IPC. On a perusal of the closure report of the learned Judicial Magistrate, this Court finds that the FIRs closed pertain to the years 2009 to 2014. No reasoning was given in the said letter about the closure of FIRs by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Avinasi, except time barred for filing charge sheet.
26. In such circumstances, this Court by an order dated http://www.judis.nic.in 14 18.12.2018, inter alia, issued the following directions:
(a) Mr.A.Natarajan, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr.Aravind Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General are directed to personally enquire into all the 87 cases by calling for explanation from the police personnel concerned and the Superintendent of Police, Tirupur, and ensure that the Superintendent of Police, Tirupur and the Inspector of Police, Uthukuli Police Station, Tirupur shall appear before this Court on 4.1.2019 without fail and file a comprehensive report, as indicated above;
(b) The Superintendent of Police, Tirupur, is directed to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the police officers concerned qua dereliction of duty in not conducting proper investigation with the time limit and filing charge sheet within the statutory period. Report as to the action taken in this regard also shall be filed on 4.1.2019.
(c) The Registrar General, High Court Madras is directed to call for explanation from Ms.G.Bharathi Prabha, then learned Judicial Magistrate, Avinasi, who is http://www.judis.nic.in 15 presently working as learned Judicial Magistrate, Gobichettipalayam, before the next date of hearing, specifically with regard to the ground on which each of the 87 cases have been closed, detailing the steps taken before closing the FIRs and the reasons for such closing of each case.
(d) The Registrar General, High Court, Madras is further directed to call for particulars from all the learned Magistrates in the State of Tamil Nadu, through the respective Principal District Judges or the Chief Judicial Magistrate, qua closing of FIRs for non filing of charge sheet within the statutory period, at least for the period from 2009 to 2014. Such report shall also be placed before the Court on the next date of hearing.
27. Pursuant to the said direction, the Registrar General, High Court, Madras filed a report dated 3.1.2019 which reveals that on the ground of non filing of charge sheet, 2,14,901 FIRs were closed for the period from 2009 to 2014. Since the Police Department did not file its report and learned Public Prosecutor sought time, this Court granted http://www.judis.nic.in 16 time till 25.1.2019.
28.The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu has filed an affidavit dated 31.01.2019 in which it is stated that in compliance with the said directions of this Court dated 04.01.2019, on 12.01.2019, the Director General of Police has sent a memorandum to all the Commissioners of Police in all Cities and all the Superintendents of Police in Districts to fix responsibility and to take appropriate action against the erred officers in this matter. Accordingly, disciplinary action is being initiated to issue show cause notices to 7324 Investigating Officers, who have failed to file the final reports within time limit which resulted in closure of 2,14,901 FIRs by the trial Courts.
29. This Court places on record its appreciation to the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu for taking timely action against the erring officers by issuing show cause notices to 7324 Investigating Officers. However, this Court feels it just and proper that the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu may issue suitable directions to all the Commissioners of Police in Cities and all the Superintendents of Police in Districts to warn the erring officers numbering 7324 for their past conduct in non filing of charge sheet numbering 2,14,901 FIRs, rather http://www.judis.nic.in 17 than proceeding against them departmentally at this belated stage, as the past should remain a warning for them to be perfect in future. Such warning should indicate categorically that the Officers shall never repeat such act in future. This Court is taking such view only because the Officers will be in different stations and positions now and any serious order passed would haunt them throughout their lives.
30. This Court also places on record the affidavit filed by the Director General of Police to the effect that there are 1,72,602 cases pending from 2010 to 2018 before the trial Courts in the State of Tamil Nadu and the same is not taken on file by the learned trial Magistrates. The specific averment contained in his affidavit as follows:
“8.It is submitted that there is no separate register maintained in the Magistrate Courts for making entries in respect of receipt/filing of charge sheets by the Police [Register for NTF Cases] and that has resulted in this anomaly of closing the FIRs as non filing of Charge Sheets within the period of limitation.
Details of cases not taken on file by the trial courts from 2010 to 2018 Sl. Zone/ No. of NTF cases year wise Total No. City 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 1 North 174 270 793 1685 2287 3742 5445 8619 14998 38013 Zone 2 Central 256 423 553 670 984 1636 2976 6624 15659 29781 Zone 3 West 610 672 923 1157 1726 3281 3775 5108 9092 26344 Zone 4 South 579 1097 1917 2758 3460 6461 10546 15735 23134 65687 http://www.judis.nic.in 18 Sl. Zone/ No. of NTF cases year wise Total No. City 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Zone 5 Cities 159 209 249 245 458 790 1117 2898 6652 12777 Total 1778 2671 4435 6515 8915 15910 23859 38984 69535 172602
31. The averment made in paragraph (8) of the affidavit of the Director General Police, Tamil Nadu, referred above, shocks the conscience of the Court as it depicts that from the year 2010 to 2018 the trial Courts have not taken on file 1,72,602 cases even then the charge sheets were filed within the stipulated time. No accused should go unpunished. This Court is unable to presume as to how many accused are left scott-free because of such non taking on charge sheets on file. This is a matter of grave concern and this Court expresses its displeasure and proposes to take appropriate action against the learned Magistrates.
32. On a bare reading of the above paragraph (8) and the tabular column furnished by the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, it is seen that in the year 2010 alone, 1778 cases have not been taken on file by the trial Courts for the reasons best known to them. This Court, by no stretch of imagination can approve such conduct on the http://www.judis.nic.in 19 part of the learned Magistrates in the State of Tamil Nadu. In all, for the period from 2010 to 2018, the trial Court have not taken on file 1,72,602 cases and such conduct is highly condemnable and hampers the very cause of justice.
33. The learned District Judges and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrates of respective Districts in the State of Tamil Nadu are hereby directed to wade through the statement given by the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, more particularly paragraph (8) of the affidavit along with the Tabular Column, and issue suitable directions to the trial Magistrates in respect of their respective Districts to identify the cases which fall within the data in the tabular column and proceed with the cases by taking the same on file and the trial should be commenced immediately without any further delay.
34. The learned Magistrates in the State of Tamil Nadu, before whom the cases numbering 1,72,602 are identified to be pending, are directed to ensure that all the cases are taken on file and assigned number and thereafter proceeded in accordance with law. Reports in this regard should be filed by the learned Magistrates before their respective learned Chief Judicial Magistrates and the learned District http://www.judis.nic.in 20 Judges within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
35. The Registrar General of this Court is directed to issue suitable directions to the learned District Judges and Chief Judicial Magistrates of the respective Districts for taking the cases mentioned in paragraph (8) of the affidavit of the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu on file without any further delay. The Registrar General to monitor the progress made in this regard and get periodic reports, in any event within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
36. In compliance of the directions issued by this Court, the Director General of Police, Chennai, had issued two memorandums, to wit, (i) Rc.No.39300/Crime 2(2)/2018, dated 12.01.2019; and (ii) Rc.No.39300/Crime 2(2)/2018-1, dated 30.01.2019.
37. In the first memorandum dated 12.01.2019 the Commissioner of Police in cities and Inspectors General of Police in Zones were requested to fix responsibility and take action as directed in the orders of this Court dated 18.12.2018 and 4.1.2019 and furnish http://www.judis.nic.in 21 detailed report about the closure of FIRs relating to their cities and districts on or before 18.1.2019.
38. By the second Circular Memorandum dated 30.1.2019, the Director General of Police issued the following directions:
“5. All Commissioners of Police in Cities and Superintendents of Police in Districts are instructed to comply with the followings:-
i. Instruct all Station House
Officers/Investigating Officers in their
respective jurisdiction to file final reports in cases under the category of section 468 Cr.P.C. within the time prescribed by law. ii. Ensure that the details are correctly entered in the FIR index then and there in respect of registration of cases, filing of final reports, disposal of cases by court, appeal, etc. iii. Instruct concerned ACPs/DSPs to check the FIR Index every month and to supervise and guide their subordinates in a proper manner for investigating and filing final report after getting approval from concerned PP/APP's as http://www.judis.nic.in 22 per the G.O.Ms.No.1175, Home CTS VI Department dated 05.06.1984.
iv. List out the cases wherein final reports have not been filed even after expiry of limitation period and direct the concerned IOs to file the final reports immediately. If investigation could not be completed within the prescribed time limit to instruct the IOs to file petition before the concerned trial court through APP explaining and detailing the reasons for the continuation of the investigation beyond the period of limitation in the interest of justice. v. List out the cases wherein final reports have been filed after expiry of limitation period and pending with courts and instruct the IOs to file “condone delay” petition under Section 473 Cr.P.C. through APP explaining the delay properly or its necessity in the interest of justice to avoid closure by the trial Court under section 468 Cr.P.c. (Guidelines given by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Pasupathi v. http://www.judis.nic.in 23 State represented by the Inspector of Police Sanarpatti Police Station, Dindigul District (2017 (2) LW (Crl.) 107 : 2017 (3) MLJ Criminal 312).
vi. List out the NTF cases (not taken on file) wherein final reports have been filed within the prescribed time and instruct the SHOs to give a 'Top Priority' letter to trial court through PPs/APPs apprising the necessity of taking the final reports on file to avoid closure under section 468 Cr.P.C.
vii.Include cases under the category of section 468 Cr.P.C. as one of the agenda in Monthly Crime Review Meeting and monitor effectively.
viii.Instruct the IOs to take steps to vacate the order of stopping further investigation passed by the trial court under section 167(5) Cr.P.C.
by getting legal opinion in respect of preferring appeal and filing appeal before the Sessions Court under Section 167(6) Cr.P.C. ix. Nominate DSP/ACP of DCRB/CRB as Nodal http://www.judis.nic.in 24 Officer to monitor investigation and filing of final reports within the prescribed time limit in cases under the category of section 468 Cr.P.C.
x. Deal with erring Investigating Officers with severe punishment for not filing final reports within the time prescribed by the law (Section 468 Cr.P.C.)
6. The above instructions should be communicated down the line and complied with scrupulously. Non- compliance of the aforesaid instructions/guidelines will be seriously viewed and disciplinary action will be taken on the erring officials.”
39. This Court feels it just and proper to record the above said Circular memorandum dated 30.1.2019 and hereby directs the Director General of Police to direct his subordinates to oversee the implementation of the above said instructions and ensure that the police authorities hew to the above said instructions stricto sensu.
40. Before parting with this case, the following directions are http://www.judis.nic.in 25 issued:
(a) The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu and the Director General of Police, Puducherry are directed to instruct all his Commissioners of Police of Cities and Inspectors General of Police of Districts to issue appropriate direction to the Investigating Officers of each and every case to investigate and file final reports within the time limit prescribed under Section 468 of Cr.P.C.
(b) All the learned Judicial Magistrates in the State of Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory of Puducherry are hereby directed that before orders are being passed under Section 468 of Cr.P.C., they must call for the Investigating Officers and issue directions to file charge sheet immediate before lapse of the statutory time period and if they fail even thereafter, the learned Magistrates are directed to inform about the inaction on the part of the Investigating Officers in writing to their Superior in the Police Department and thereafter pass orders under Section 468 of Cr.P.C.
(c) All the learned District Judges and learned Chief http://www.judis.nic.in 26 Judicial Magistrates in the State of Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory of Puducherry are directed to issue suitable directions to the learned Magistrates to maintain registers for making entries in respect of receipt of charge sheet from the Investigating Officers by mentioning date of filing with time and also the date of taking on file of the case.
(d) All the learned Magistrates are further directed that while passing orders under Section 468 of Cr.P.C., they must apply their judicial mind independently and thereafter pass orders.
(e) All the learned Magistrates are directed to report the orders passed under Section 468 of Cr.P.C.
periodically, once in three months giving full particulars to the learned District Judges and the Chief Judicial Magistrates in the State of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
41. The Registrar General, High Court, Madras is directed to circulate a copy of this order to all the learned District Judges and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrates in the State of Tamil Nadu and the http://www.judis.nic.in 27 Union Territory of Puducherry, to ensure that all the learned Magistrates adhere to the directions issued above in true letter and spirit.
42. With the risk of repetition, it is emphasized that the Police officials, particularly the Station House Officers/the Investigating Officers, should ensure that in future no accused should be left scott- free because of non filing of charge sheet within the statutory period, except with just exceptions as contemplated under law. Hereinafter, the Police Higher authorities, who are nominated in every District by the District Head Police Officers, should take appropriate action against the erring Police officials immediately without any hesitation for non filing of the charge sheet as per the time fixed under Section 468 of Cr.P.C.
43. This Court appreciates the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu for taking immediate effective steps by issuing circular dated 30.01.2019. The Director General of Police is hereby directed to ensure that the same should be followed with care and caution by the Subordinate Police Officers in the State of Tamil Nadu. http://www.judis.nic.in 28
44.This Court records its appreciation for Mr.A.Natarajan, learned State Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai and Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General for extending their fullest co-operation and assisting this Court to pass appropriate orders to enlighten and make aware the essentiality of the Section 468 of Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrates and Police Personnel in the State of Tamil Nadu and Union Territory of Puducherry.
45. The Registrar General of this Court and the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu and Puducherry are hereby directed to get the compliance reports from their Subordinate Officials and report before this Court on 10.06.2019.
46. The Registry is directed to post this case on 10.06.2019 for reporting compliance.
18.02.2019
vs
Note: Issue order copy on 18.02.2019
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
Note to Registry:
Issue order copy to the Registrar General
High Court, Madras.
http://www.judis.nic.in
29
To
1. The Commissioner for Employee's Compensation/ Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coonoor.
2.The Director General of Police, State of Tamil Nadu, Chennai.
3.The Secretary, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai.
4.The Director General of Police, Puducherry.
5.The Secretary, Home Department, Government of Puducherry.
6.The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court, Madras.
http://www.judis.nic.in 30 M.V.MURALIDARAN, J.
vs Pre-delivery Judgment made in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1452 of 2018 18.02.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in