Madras High Court
Duraisingavel vs The State on 25 May, 2023
Author: B.Pugalendhi
Bench: B.Pugalendhi
W.P.No.14648 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.05.2023
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.No.14648 of 2023
Duraisingavel .. Petitioner
Vs
1.The State,
rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police
Q Branch CID,
Dharmapuri.
2.The Secretary,
Legal Services Authority,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai-600 104. .. Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the trial Court
Special Court under POTA Act at Poonamallee, Chennai in Special
S.C.No.3 of 2022 to implement the order in C.A.No.346/2007 dated
10.12.2008 on the file of High Court forthwith in order to facilitate the
petitioner and other accused to proceed with the trial after formulating
their defense in consultation with his lawyer appointed by the Legal Aid
__________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14648 of 2023
as directed by the Division Bench in C.A.No.346/2007 dated
10.12.2008 to secure ends of justice.
For the Petitioner : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu
For the Respondents : Mr.M.Babu Muthumeeran
Addl. Public Prosecutor
for respondent No.1
ORDER
(Order of the court was made by B.PUGALENDHI, J.) The petitioner, who is accused No.22 in Special S.C.No.3 of 2022 pending on the file of the Special Court under POTA Act at Poonamallee, Chennai, has filed this writ petition alleging that he has not been provided with a pleader of his choice from the Legal Aid panel to defend his case as per the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 10.12.2008 in Criminal Appeal No.346 of 2007 (Martin @ Tamilselvan and others v. State).
2. Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by relying upon the judgment in Martin @ Tamilselvan, supra, submits that in the event the court is satisfied that the __________ Page 2 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14648 of 2023 accused is entitled to defend his case through the pleader of his choice who has special expertise, the Court in exercise of suo motu power under Section 304 Cr.P.C. could appoint such pleader by fixing the fee at the cost of the State, provided the accused does not have means to pay the pleader. He submitted that in the light of the decision of this Court in Martin @ Tamilselvan, supra, in order to facilitate the petitioner and other accused to proceed with the trial of the sessions case, a Legal Aid counsel may be appointed.
3. Mr.M.Babu Muthumeeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent State, by relying upon the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, submitted that the case was registered against the petitioner and other accused in the year 2002 for the offences under POTA Act, 2002 and Arms Act, 1959 and the petitioner has filed this writ petition only to protract the trial.
4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.
__________ Page 3 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14648 of 2023
5. At the outset, it is to be recorded that along with the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has filed typed-set of papers, wherein at page 149 we found that Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel, has filed vakalathnama for the petitioner herein in the Special S.C.No.3 of 2022 on 23.2.2023.
6. Mr.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that since there was nobody to represent the petitioner, on his request, he has appeared only for one hearing and if he is appointed as counsel for the petitioner, he is ready to conduct the case on behalf of the petitioner before the trial Court. He has also requested for similar appointment in respect of the other accused.
7. Since the petitioner/accused No.22 alone is before this Court and the fact remains that Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel, has already filed vakalathnama on behalf of the petitioner before the trial Court, considering the expertise of __________ Page 4 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14648 of 2023 Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel, in the criminal side, this Court hereby appoints Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, as Legal Aid counsel to defend the petitioner before the trial Court.
8. Considering the submissions made on either side that the case is still pending trial from 2002, this Court directs the Special Court under POTA Act at Poonamallee, Chennai, to conduct the trial in Special S.C.No.3 of 2022 pending on its file on day-to-day basis and dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.14132 of 2023 is closed.
(B.P., J.) (V.L.N., J.)
25.05.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
sasi/bbr
__________
Page 5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14648 of 2023
To:
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Q Branch CID, Dharmapuri.
2.The Secretary, Legal Services Authority, High Court of Madras, Chennai-600 104.
__________ Page 6 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14648 of 2023 B.PUGALENDHI, J.
AND V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
sasi/bbr W.P.No.14648 of 2023 25.05.2023 __________ Page 7 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis