Date:19/09/2008 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2008/09/19/stories/2008091954580400.htm

Tamil Nadu - Chennai

Crime Branch CID to probe cases of building demolition in Erode

Special Correspondent

CHENNAI: Concluding that the local police colluded with the accused, the Madras High Court has ordered the transfer of two cases relating to alleged demolition of residential buildings, uprooting of 200 coconut trees and ransacking of a house in Erode district in July this year, to the Crime Branch CID for further investigation.

In his order dismissing the anticipatory bail plea of nearly 25 persons in the two cases and ordering the transfer of the cases to the special unit, Justice R.Regupathi said “On an overall assessment of the material available, I could only conclude that the respondent police colluded with the accused and instead of proceeding with the investigation in a proper perspective, kept the things cloaked for the undue benefit of the accused.” Sufficient material were not collected during investigation. No honest efforts were made to arrest the accused. Taking note of the fact that the petitioners played a fraud on the High Court and thereby procured favourable orders and looking at the preposterous and irresponsible manner in which the investigating agency handled the matter, the judge said, he was of the considered opinion that it was absolutely necessary that investigation of the two cases should not be allowed to continue in the hands of the local police.

The judge said the two incidents occurred in quick succession.

The first occurred on July 22 wherein there was a serious allegation that residential buildings (of one P.C.Palanichamy) were demolished, 200 coconut trees were uprooted, vehicles were stolen and persons kidnapped. The case was taken on file two days later for bailable offences. The next day, the second incident occurred wherein the house of one Guhamani, Palanichamy’s relative, was ransacked. It appeared that the second one was a fallout of the complaint lodged with the police in respect of the first incident.

“Had the investigation in the first case been taken up with all seriousness, the second occurrence would not have taken place at all.”

Counsel for the intervener in the anticipatory bail plea vehemently objected to continuation of the investigation by the local police and sought transfer of investigation to some other agency.

The judge said, “as regards the investigation done so far, this court could see obstinate lethargic attitude on the part of the investigating agency leaving a murky question for whose benefit they resorted to such impassive attitude.”