Duraisingavel @ Velu @ Durai @ vs The State Represented By
2024 Latest Caselaw 2057 Mad

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 2057 Mad
Judgement Date : 1 February, 2024

Madras High Court

Duraisingavel @ Velu @ Durai @ vs The State Represented By on 1 February, 2024

Author: M.S.Ramesh

Bench: M.S.Ramesh

                                                                                Crl.A.No.1663 of 2023



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 01.02.2024

                                                      CORAM :
                                     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
                                                        AND
                                    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
                                               Crl.A.No.1663 of 2023

                     Duraisingavel @ Velu @ Durai @
                     Maran @ Rameskumar @ Nathan @ Seeralan
                     @ Gowtham                                          ... Appellant

                                                          vs.
                     The State represented by
                     Deputy Superintendent of Police,
                     'Q' Branch,
                     Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.
                     (Uthangarai PS.Cr.Nos.1004/2002,
                     1005/2002, 1006/2002 and
                     Kallavi PS.Crime No.434 of 2002)              …5th respondent/complainant

                     Criminal Appeal filed under Section 34 of Prevention of Terrorism Act
                     (POTA) 2002, to set aside the order in Crl.M.P.No.2260 of 2023 in
                     Spl.S.C.No.3 of 2002 on the file of the Special Court under the Prevention of
                     Terrorism Act (POTA) 2002 (Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb
                     Blast cases) Chennai at Poonamallee, Chennai – 56, to secure the ends of
                     justice.

                                                          1


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                             Crl.A.No.1663 of 2023




                                        For Appellant           : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu

                                    For Respondent : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
                                                 Additional Public Prosecutor


                                                                JUDGMENT

(Order of the Court was made by SUNDER MOHAN,J.)

This Criminal Appeal is preferred to set aside the order in

Crl.M.P.No.2260 of 2023 in Spl.S.C.No.3 of 2002 on the file of the Special

Court under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) 2002 (Sessions Court

for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast cases) Chennai at Poonamallee, Chennai.

2. The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.22 and facing trial in

Spl.S.C.No.3 of 2022 for the following charges:

(i) Section 3(5) of POTA Act, 2002;

(ii) Section 120B of IPC r/w Section 3(2)(b) of POTA Act, 2002;

(iii)Section 4(b) of POTA Act, 2002;

(iv) Section 3(3) of POTA Act, 2002;

(v) Section 22(1)(a) r/w Section 22(5) of POTA Act, 2002 or an alternative charge of Section 387 of IPC;

(vi) Section 25(1-B)(a) of POTA Act, 2002 r/w Section 3 of Arms Act, 1959;

(vii)Section 307 of IPC;

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

(viii)Section 333 of IPC;

(ix) Section 148 of IPC;

(x) Section 307 of IPC r/w Section 149 of IPC;

(xi) Section 333 of IPC r/w Section 149 of IPC;

(xii)Section 353 of IPC r/w Section 149 of IPC; and

(xiii)Section 148 of IPC.

3. The prosecution filed a petition under Section 285 of Cr.P.C., to

appoint a Commission to visit the house of a witness i.e., LW218, who had

accorded sanction for the prosecution of the accused on the ground that he

was suffering from motor neuron disease and unable to walk and travel and

that he had lost his speech.

4. The accused filed counter opposing the said petition stating that the

witness had only produced a private Doctor's certificate which cannot be the

basis to hold that he is suffering from any serious disease warranting

appointment of a Commission.

5. The trial court found that the prosecution had shown that the

witness is suffering from loss of speech, unable to walk and he is aged 73

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

years. The trial Court further held that the witness had only accorded

sanction on the basis of records and there is no necessity to identify the

accused by the witness. Hence, the trial Court issued warrant of

Commission to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant/A22 reiterated the averments

made in the counter filed before the trial Court and submitted that the

certificate of a private doctor ought not to have been accepted by the trial

Court.

7. Therefore, when the case came up for hearing on an earlier

occasion, we directed the respondent to obtain a certificate from medical

practitioner attached to Government Hospital, certifying the medical ailment

of the witness LW218.

8. Today, the respondent has filed an affidavit enclosing the certificate

issued by a doctor attached to Institute of Cardiology, Rajiv Gandhi

Government General Hospital and Madras Medical College, Chennai. The

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

certificate reads as follows:

“This is to certify that Mr.Munir Hoda IAS 73 years old male, has been suffering from Motor Neuro Disease, as per his records and clinical observation.