The Hindu : Tamil Nadu News : Plea to transfer Kiruttinan murder trial dismissed

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, Dec 18, 2004

Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu

Plea to transfer Kiruttinan murder trial dismissed

By Our Staff Reporter

MADURAI, DEC. 17. The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court today dismissed a petition seeking the transfer of the Kiruttinan murder case pending before the third additional district court here on the ground that the petitioner failed to establish the allegations levelled against the presiding officer. However, Justice S.R. Singharavelu directed the Additional District Judge to have "effective control" over the court proceedings to maintain the dignity and decorum of the institution.

T. Kiruttinan, former Minister in the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Government, was murdered here on May 20, 2003. A case was registered against 13 persons, including M.K. Azhagiri, son of the former Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi.

The trial is scheduled to begin on January 24.

The younger brother of the deceased, T. Ramiah, moved the Bench to transfer the case apprehending that there would not be a fair trial before the Additional District Judge since he enjoyed a close relationship with the Union Minister of State for Home, S. Reghupathy, a DMK member. The petitioner also alleged that the Minister influenced the judge when the latter met him after he assumed charge as Union Minster.

`Not good ground'

The order said that a Minister, being a close friend of the trial judge and that they jointly practised together as advocates in Pudukottai in the early years of their career, might not be a good ground for transfer of the case unless the alleged influence exerted by the Minister over the judge was established in clear terms.

"We cannot search for a presiding officer who is not known to any Minister of State or Central Government and mere intimacy with such a Minister cannot be considered as bad by itself," the judge observed.

As far as the allegations by the petitioner that the entire proceedings in the case took a twist after the meeting between the judge and the Minister and the accused suddenly began to cooperate with the court and charges were framed immediately on August 5, the Bench clarified that it was not an "option" or "merciful or affectionate act" of the accused towards the presiding judge but a mandate, failing to follow, which would result in compelling them to comply with further proceedings of the court.

Making it clear that a report had not been called for from the Additional District Judge on the allegations levelled against him, not with an intention to avoid embarrassing the presiding officer, the Judge said: "A report is not called because there was no prima facie case of allegation found in the affidavit, in as much as no specific date, time and place was mentioned about the meeting, which is considered to be the genesis for every branch of succeeding favouritism alleged."

However, in the "interest of justice and in order to avoid unfair treatment to any of the parties concerned in the case," the Bench directed the Additional District Judge to give equal opportunity to all those concerned in the case and that the Special Public Prosecutor be given the status of a law officer in representing the case of the prosecution.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Tamil Nadu