The companytention raised on the basis of the statements made by the Chief Minister on the floor of the House does number impress us.
The petitioner had already been arrested earlier on 11.11.2004.
The two lady lawyers, namely, Revathy Vasudevan and Nadhira Banu also filed similar writ petitions being Writ Petition Nos.
The detention order was challenged by these accused by filing Habeas Corpus petition No.
The Chief Minister who is also holding the Home Portfolio made the statement on 17.11.2004 and also gave a Press statement on 1.12.2004.
Shri Prem Kumar and Shri S.P. Sakthivel, Head and Chief Investigating Officer of SIT respondent Nos.
After the case was registered, necessary investigation followed and several persons were arrested.
Just five days thereafter Padma Sankararaman identified respondent Nos.
The writ petition was disposed of on 15.3.2005 by the following order The learned Public Prosecutor states that numberproceedings are companytemplated against the writ petitioner Mr. A. Shanmugham.
The investigating agency has companye out with a case that the petitioner had entered into a companyspiracy with some other companyaccused in getting Shankararaman murdered.
The allegation made against him by Ravi Subramaniam at the instance of Shri Prem Kumar and on the whispering made to him by inspector Srinivasan are false, frivolous and vexatious, apart from being motivated and he had never met the wife of Ravi Subramaniam at any time.
It is also denied that the learned Magistrate asked Srinivasan to leave the companyrt.
6192 of 2004, which was allowed by this Court on 10.1.2005 and he was granted bail.
This companyduct of Shri Prem Kumar and inspector Srinivasan of prompting the witness to make a statement against the senior companynsel Shri Dinakaran was strongly objected to by the defence lawyers and they expressed their anguish in the manner in which the police was going out of its way in making insinuations and securing statement of witnesses against the defence lawyers.
Shri A. Shanmugam, advocate, apprehending that the FIR lodged by Smt.
According to the case of the prosecution, the petitioner had entered into a companyspiracy with some other companyaccused for getting Sankararaman murdered.
The motive for the companymission of the crime is said to be various companyplaints alleged to have been made by the deceased levelling serious allegations, both against the personal character of the petitioner and also his style of functioning as Shankaracharya of the Mutt.
6407 of 2005 A. Shanmugham vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others in the High Court of Madras praying for a writ of mandamus for transferring the investigation of case Crime No.
Shri Shanmugam has filed an affidavit in this Court on 27.4.2005, which was sworn on 18.4.2005.
127 of 2005 registered against them from the local police to the CBI.
vii Criminal cases have been lodged against some leading journalists of the companyntry and other prominent personalities, who had written articles criticizing the arrest of the petitioner, which number only violates right of free speech but also creates an atmosphere of threat against anyone daring to speak or write in favour of the accused and thus the accused seriously apprehend that they would number get a fair trial in the State of Tamil Nadu.
197 of 2005 pending before the Principal Sessions Court, Chenglepet, to any other State, out side the State of Tamil Nadu.
On 19.2.2005 Smt.
12 and 13 in a test identification parade as they are alleged to have gone to her house enquiring about the deceased.
The petitioner has engaged Shri K.S. Dinakaran, who is 67 years of age and is a very senior companynsel having put in 43 years of practice.
The local police, however, acted with companysiderable speed and submitted a charge sheet on 17.6.2005 against both the lady lawyers under Sections 451, 214 IPC read with Sections 109, 201, 506 2 IPC and a case was registered on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.
The learned Magistrate fixed 4.4.2005 for disposal of the application moved on behalf of the accused and after one more adjournment it was taken up on 7.4.2005 when the learned Magistrate held that the accused were entitled to cross examine Ravi Subramaniam.
5, P. Subramaniam Ravi Subramaniam, who has been granted pardon and has turned approver, the remaining companyaccused, namely, respondent Nos.
7 and M.K. Raghu respondent No.
However, the allegation that the aforesaid statement was made at the prompting of Shri Prem Kumar and thereafter whispering by inspecter Srinivasan to Ravi Subramaniam is denied.
A detailed rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner and some other affidavits have also been filed to which we will make reference at the appropriate stage.
Except for respondent No.
In reply to the Transfer Petition three sets of companynter affidavits have been filed, one on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu and its Director General of Police, second by Shri Prem Kumar, Head of SIT, who has been impleaded as respondent No.
vi The Mutt and other associated and companynected trusts have 183 accounts in banks, which were all frozen by the SIT resulting in paralyzing the religious and other activities of the Mutt and other companynected bodies.
The examination in chief of Ravi Subramaniam companymenced on 7.4.2005 which companyld number be companypleted on that day and the case was adjourned to 8.4.2005 and thereafter to 11.4.2005.
He also declined to record the aforesaid statement made by Ravi Subramaniam wherein he had said that Shri S. Dinakaran had gone to his house and had threatened his wife.
However, the prayer made on behalf of the accused to furnish companyy of the video and audio cassettes, which are mentioned in the charge sheet, was rejected.
Shri K.S. Dinakaran, in his letter dated 23.9.2005 sent to Shri Krishna Kumar, Advocate on Record for the petitioner in the Supreme Court companyy of which has been placed on record , has mentioned that the said incident did take place in the companyrt of learned Judicial Magistrate on 11.4.2005 and the affidavit filed by Shri A. Shanmugam, Advocate, wherein the aforesaid incident had been narrated, is companyrect.
P.C. on 31.12.2004 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chenglepet, Ravi Subramaniam had stated that his relations with his wife were strained for over ten years.
An FIR was lodged at 7.00 p.m. on 3.9.2004 at Police Station B 2, Vishnu Kanchi by Shri N.S. Ganesan.
After companypletion of investigation the police submitted a charge sheet against all the 24 accused in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Kanchipuram on 21.1.2005, which was registered as Preliminary Registered Case PRC No.
On the said day, while his cross examination was going on, on the instructions of Shri Prem Kumar, Superintendent of Police and Head of SIT one police inspector by the name of Srinivasan, who is part of the SIT and is said to have been instrumental in effecting the arrest of the approver Ravi Subramaniam, whispered something to him.
It is numbericed in the judgment that the Manager of the Mutt was called at least 15 times for interrogation and was arrested on 24.12.2004 and the junior Shankaracharya was also arrested on 11.1.2005.
I, Kanchipuram being PRC No.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
We have heard Shri F.S. Nariman, learned senior companynsel for the petitioner, Shri Ashok Desai, learned senior companynsel, who has appeared for respondent No.
127 of 2005 from the local police to CBI.
P.C. against Shri Murli Manohar Joshi, former Union Minister for Human Resources Development, Shri Karunanidhi President, DMK and former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu , Shri H. Raja, MLA and Shri Gurumurthi, a journalist for their prosecution under Section 500 IPC.
Therefore, numberhing further survives in the writ petition.
viii Shri Prem Kumar, who is heading the Special Investigating Team, is number a fair and upright officer and superior companyrts have passed strictures against him several times in the past for his uncalled for actions in going out of the way to implicate innocent persons in criminal cases.
After retirement he is working as Manager of the Mutt and is aged about 67 years.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed Special Leave Petition Crl.
3 and the third by P. Subramaniam Ravi Subramaniam, companyaccused, who has been granted pardon and has turned approver in the case.
Shri Nariman, learned senior companynsel for the petitioner has also submitted that number only the State machinery is being used to cause harassment to the accused in the murder case in every possible manner but even those, who have written any kind of article or have given any press statement or interview criticizing the action of the State in arresting and involving the petitioner Jayendra Saraswathi in the murder case of Sankararaman, have number been spared and criminal cases have been lodged against them.
Consequently, the companynected W.P.M.P. No.
5 to 28, who are companyaccused in the case.
and retired as Class I Officer in the Reserve Bank of India.
3 of 2005.
The very next day, i.e., on 11.1.2005 Vijayendra Saraswati Swamigal respondent No.
Immediately thereafter, Ravi Subramaniam of his own volunteered and made a statement that Shri K.S. Dinakaran, senior companynsel who is appearing for the petitioner, had met his wife Smt.
It is averred therein that the companyy of the charge sheet, which is a long document and runs into 1873 pages, was given to the accused on 31.3.2005 and on the same day the prosecution sought to examine Ravi Subramaniam approver before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, who had taken companynizance of the offence and was holding companymittal proceedings.
According to the custom and tradition of the Mutt, he would succeed the petitioner.
Besides him Shri A. Shanmugam, who has a standing of 27 years at the Bar and some other lawyers are also appearing for him.
P.C. against Shri Murli Manohar Joshi, Shri Karunanidhi, Shri H. Raja and Shri Gurumurthi for having made statements against the functioning of the Government of Tamil Nadu intending to harm the reputation of the Chief Minister of the State.
6 , who is the junior Sankaracharya, was arrested.
Chitra was manipulated by the State machinery and he may be falsely implicated in the aforesaid case and may be arrested, then filed Writ Petition No.
Shri Nariman has also submitted that an amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs was paid by way of solatium by the Chief Minister to Padma Sankararaman, widow of Sankararaman deceased in the Secretariat building on 24.11.2005, which event was widely companyered in the media.
Shri Gurumurthi filed writ petition No.
It was stated therein that at about 5.45 p.m. on 3.9.2004 while he was in the office of Devarajaswamy Devasthanam, two persons armed with aruval came there and caused multiple injuries to Sankararaman, In charge Administrative Manager, who was sitting on a chair.
19146 of 2005 and 19147 of 2005 praying that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the transfer of investigation of case Crime No.
An application was then moved on behalf of the petitioner praying for permission to cross examine Ravi Subramaniam in case his statement was recorded and for this purpose some time was sought in order to go through all the documents companytained in the charge sheet.
6 to 28 are supporting the prayer for transfer of the case and some of them have filed affidavits in that regard.
The petitioner was arrested on 11.11.2004 from Mehboobnagar in Andhra Pradesh.
8 between 13th to 25th January, 2005, while they had still number been granted bail in the present murder case.
The High Court after examining the matter in companysiderable detail allowed the writ petition by the judgment and order dated 11.2.2005.
On the objection being taken by the defence lawyers the learned Judicial Magistrate, who had witnessed the entire incident, asked the inspector Srinivasan to leave the companyrt.
N. Sundaresan is a Gold Medalist of B.Com.
The respondents arrayed in the Transfer Petition are 1 State of Tamil Nadu, 2 Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, 3 Shri Prem Kumar, Superintendent of Police, Head of the Special Investigation Team SIT , 4 Shri S.P. Sakthivel, Chief Investigating Officer, SIT, besides respondent Nos.
6990 of 2005 is closed.
Four persons were waiting outside and the assailants escaped on their motorcycles.
Chitra at his house and had threatened her that he Ravi Subramaniam should number give any statement against the petitioner.
He filed a bail petition before the High Court of Madras, which was rejected on 20.11.2004 and the second petition was rejected on 8.12.2004.
P. Mathur,J. This petition has been filed by Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal, Sankaracharya of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam under Section 406 Cr.
79 etc.
of 2005 in Madras High Court and the same was allowed on 5.5.2005 and all the detention orders were quashed.
The writ petitions were disposed of on 24.6.2005 and paragraphs 1, 5, 6 and 7 of the order passed by the High Court are being reproduced below Petitioners herein are practicing Women Lawyers at Kancheepuram and both of them are in the panel of Taluk Legal Services Committee, Kancheepuram.
P.C. seeking transfer of Sessions Case No.
