Dr. R.S. Sridhar vs The State of Tamil Nadu by Secretary, Home Department and Deputy Superintendent of Police

C.S. Karnan, J.—The petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original for direction to the first respondent to pay a fair and just amount as

compensation for the malicious and mischievous arrest, detention and prosecution and further direction ordering any other relief as this

Honouroable Court may consider fit and proper in the circumstances of this matter.

The petitioner supporting his direction petition, has filed an affidavit in his name. The petitioner states that he is a qualified doctor; that the second

respondent arrested and prosecuted him on a false, concocted case of procurement of medicine and other goods in Chennai City for the LTTE

and to indulge in activities prejudicial to the security of the State has irrevocably damaged his life; that this dishonest action of the second

respondent put him to face the case in C.C. No. 7493 of 1997 before the Court of XI Metropolitan Magistrate at Saidapet for offences u/s

120(B) of IPC and 13(2) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act of 1967 r/w. 511 of IPC which ended in acquittal on September 1998.

The petitioner further states that the terrorizing tactics of the second respondent has put him to grave suffering due to the custody for 30 days

and a 12 months period of facing the trial. Thus, he has been forced to shoulder the stigma as an accused for a period of 18 months. Hence, the

petitioner is approaching this Court for making the first respondent/State of Tamil Nadu, accountable for its callous functioning and unconcerned

approach when his human rights violations by the police were visible and reported in the press and other media. Thus the petitioner contends he is

entitled for monetary compensation and hence is placing the materials substantiating his claim.

The petitioner states that he is a proud Indian Citizen and supporter of Srilankan Tamils and has never attempted to do any anti-National activity

or help an unlawful organisation as alleged by the respondents. The petitioner states that he used to attend meetings in Periyar Thidal and got

introduced to Mr. Eelavendan, a Srilankan Tamil refugee who is residing in Chennai and Mrs. Malini Devi Rasanayagam, an Australian Citizen who

is the wife of a leading Orthopedic Surgeon. Mrs. Malini Devi Rasanayagam is a Tamilian, originally hailing from Sri lanka and is settled in

Australia. Upon seeing the news reports of Mrs. Malini Rasanayagm''s meeting with the Chief Minister ,as she had donated Rs. 50,000/- to Chief

Minister''s Relief Fund, the petitioner decided to help Mrs.Malini Mrs. Malini Rasanayagam when she wanted to provide medical help to Srilankan

Tamil refugees staying in Tamil Nadu. She had requested the petitioner to enquire the prices of certain medicines by providing a list of medicines to

be bought for organising a series of medical camps and to run a nursing home for serving the Tamil refugees at the petitioner''s premises. The

petitioner had given this list to medical shops in Annanagar with the intention of preparing a price list of medicines and medical equipment on

06.02.1997.

It was subsequently requested by the second respondent to report for an enquiry with regard to the procurement of medicines for unlawful

purposes. The petitioner appeared on 08.02.1997 before the second respondent and explained the said reason for the visits to medical shop.

Subsequently, he was arrested. The learned Magistrate recorded his statement and remanded him. He was released on bail on March 7, 1997,

thus he had been kept in jail for a period of one month.

The petitioner submits that the charge sheet was filed by the second respondent on 14.12.1997 and the first respondent has also accorded

sanction for prosecution through his letter Ms. No. 1768 dated 05.12.1998, even though his name was not mentioned in the First Information

Report filed by police. The matter was taken up as C.C. No. 7493 of 1997 before the XI Metropolitan Magistrate at Saidapet and judgment

pronounced on 08.09.1998, acquitting him of all the charges.

The petitioner contends that the legal proceedings initiated by the respondents against him was unnecessary, unwarranted and outright malicious

and was done only to create a sensational news in the media to instill a sense of fear among the general public against helping Srilankan Tamils. The

petitioner further submits that the malicious action of the respondents has ruined his life, medical career and marriage and has caused grave mental

agony to him. Further, the petitioner submits that he was not able to register as a medical practitioner in Ireland, which offer was made to him by

the Medical Council of Ireland, through their letter dated 26th February 1997, due to his being a remand prisoner and therefore he has now lost

the eligibility to register as a medical practitioner in Ireland. He further alleges that if he had practised in Ireland, he would have made around Rs.

75 lakhs in the form of salary for 36 months.

Further, the petitioner has cited a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in S. Balasubramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu W.P. No. 6137 of

1991, dated 11.03.1994 and another judgment in Krishnamma v. Government of India 1999 Criminal Law Journal Page 1915 in support of his

case. Further, the petitioner in support of his case has filed 15 documents.

The prosecution case had miserably failed against the petitioner. The first respondent had filed the counter statement and denied all the

allegations of the petitioner. The respondent further submitted that the acquittal by the Court does not mean that the respondent police had violated

human rights of the petitioner. Even though, the petitioner was acquitted by the Court, the respondent stoutly resists the claim of the petitioner.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the opinion that the respondent is the competent/proper/fit/independent

agency to prevent offences and maintain law and order. The same has been done by the respondent. Though several criminal cases are filed by the

prosecution, many of them end in acquittal of the accused. Acquittal may be for various reasons and it does not mean that the respondent have not

prepared their cases properly. If all the acquitted persons, in their respective cases, demand compensation, the Government cannot comply with it

for practical reasons.

Hence, the direction petition in Crl.O.P. No. 511 of 2000 is not maintainable and has got to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.