TAMIL NADU

Court imposes Rs.1-lakh cost on former CB-CID inspector

K.T. Sangameswaran

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has imposed Rs.1 lakh as cost on a former CB CID Inspector, who “has taken the law of the land for granted and continues to abuse the criminal justice system.”

The court said that he should deposit the sum with the trial court so that it could be paid to the Enforcement Directorate, which had shuttled from one forum to another due to the clever tactics adopted by him.

Justice R. Regupathi said if the former police officer failed to deposit the amount, the trial court should issue a non-bailable warrant against him and commit him to custody till the end of the trial.

The prosecution case was that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had seized foreign currencies to the tune of crores of rupees from the house of A. Abdul Samadh. On interrogation, he said that his friend Haja Alauddin of Singapore had sent gold and silver through some passengers from Singapore. He had sold the consignment to two others and converted the sale proceeds into foreign currencies.

A portion of the currencies was sent to Alauddin and the balance retained by him.

During the trial against Abdul Samadh, six prosecution witnesses were examined. Later, the case was posted for examination of defence witnesses.

His petition, which contained a list of witnesses and also stated that the names of some more witnesses would be given, if necessary, at a later stage and that the court may permit their examination, was dismissed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic Offences-II, Egmore.

Challenging this, he filed a revision before the High Court. He also filed another petition, challenging an order of the Principal Judge, Sessions Court, Chennai, who had dismissed his petition to transfer the case from the court of Additional CMM, EO-II, to any other court. The Principal Judge had directed that trial be completed in five months.

In his common order dismissing the petitions, Mr. Justice Regupathi said the trial judge had elaborately considered the genuineness of the petitioner’s plea with reference to each one of the witnesses to be examined and found that it was nothing but a tactic to prolong the proceedings.

Similarly, the trial court had dismissed the petition seeking transfer of the case, which had been filed on flimsy grounds.

Recommended for you