Date:25/11/2008 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2008/11/25/stories/2008112557320600.htm

Tamil Nadu - Madurai

Madras High Court Bench quashes DGP’s order

Staff Reporter

Refusing to recruit a 28-year-old youth as police constable

Judge quashes the DGP’s order, directs him to appoint P. Saravanan to the post
Justice Nagamuthu calls for relevant records from the trial court

MADURAI: The Madras High Court Bench here has quashed an order passed by the Director General of Police refusing to recruit a 28-year-old youth as a police constable on the “wrong” premise that he was involved in a criminal case.

Allowing a writ petition filed by the youngster, Justice S. Nagamuthu agreed with the petitioner that it was not him, but his elder brother who was accused in the 1999 rioting case which ended up in acquittal in 2002.

Brother, real accused

The Judge quashed the DGP’s order and directed him to forthwith appoint P. Saravanan of Panchalamkurichi in Tuticorin district to the post. He held that petitioner’s brother — also named P. Saravanan alias Sekar— was the real accused.

Objecting to the writ petition, a police inspector attached to the Tuticorin district Special Branch had informed the High Court that the petitioner “slipped from the clutches of law by the appearance of his elder brother…until the disposal of the case.”

Allegation of impersonation

Shocked over such a serious allegation of impersonation particularly in a criminal case that ended up in acquittal, the Judge asked the inspector to file an affidavit to that effect.

But the police officer refused to put it in writing.

Nevertheless, Mr. Justice Nagamuthu called for the relevant records from the trial court and found that all the witnesses, including the complainant, in the criminal case had identified the accused as P. Saravanan alias Sekar, the petitioner’s brother.

Baseless claim

It was never disputed at any stage of the trial, either by the police or by witnesses that the real culprit was the petitioner and not his brother.

Therefore, the present claim made by the police inspector was baseless, the Judge said.

No correction made

“Had it been the case of the police department that by putting a wrong person as accused in the case, the entire court proceedings had been made farcical, nothing would have prevented them from bringing it to the notice of the court to correct the same. Even after six years, nothing of that sort has been resorted to by the department,” he added.