PIL seeking CBI probe into police involvement in gutka sale dismissed

The first bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M Sundar on noting that the Commissioner himself has raised the issue and called for an independent enquiry to unearth the involvement of any officer, said “the step taken shows that the authorities are quite conscious of the importance of the issue and this letter is as recent as the last month. 

We see no reason why the court should step into this issue when the authorities are themselves conscious of the gravity of the issue.” Further, the bench on holding that the averments in the petition show that there is no specific ground work done by the petitioner to conclude that a fair and impartial enquiry would not take place, said “We also doubt the bona fides of the petitioner in filing the present petition. It, in fact, seeks to give an impression as if some views officially taken is sought to be further pressed in the government decision by filing a public interest litigation.” 

The bench also held that “We have even earlier commented a number of times on advocates lending their names as litigants and lending their shoulder to fire the gun, something which is condemnable.” 

The petitioner, T Vincent, an advocate, had contended that the Income Tax department had raided gutka godowns and illegal factories of one MLM Gutka within Madhavaram police district and seized several incriminating documents including book of accounts and personal diary noting’s, which implicate the connivance and active involvement of several high-ranking police officers starting from the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police to the Commissioner of police. 

He also contended that the Commissioner of Police S George in a letter written to the principal secretary, Department of Home, has acceded that there is an active involvement of several high-ranking police officers in this scandal and hence a CBI probe is required.

The Madras High Court on Friday refused to take up an urgent hearing of a plea which sought a ban on animal rights group PETA and its website. When the first bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M Sundar assumed the sitting for the day, an advocate by name Balasubramanian made a mention seeking to urgently hear his plea seeking a ban on PETA and its website. He contended that PETA had failed to file their Income Tax returns for 2012 and hence was not eligible to approach the Supreme Court. He also claimed that PETA’s website was a host to obscene materials and hence needs to be pulled down. However, the bench on noting that there was nothing urgent about the issue sought the advocate to file his petition at the first place and that it would be taken through the normal course.

The Madras High Court has suo motu taken cognisance of police personnel indulging in settlements at police stations instead of executing non-bailable warrants (NBW) issued by the courts in connection with cheque bounce cases. Justice C T Selvam before whom such an agreement of settlement arrived at the police station was submitted, said “Time and again, this Court notices that on issue of non-bailable warrants by Courts dealing with cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the police on securing the person against whom NBW is issued, holds such person at the police station under threat and the presence of the complainant is also secured. Brazenly, settlement made between the parties are recorded and thereafter, the accused is allowed to walk away.” 

The judge taking strong exception to such a process, said “On the one hand, the complainant in a case under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act obtains an undertaking for repayment through the police agency and on the other, the dignity of the Court is undermined by a person apprehended pursuant to non-bailable warrant issued by it not being produced before the Court.” Pointing out that the position raises issues of serious concern, directed the Director General of Police to issue instructions to avoid such wrong doing by the police personnel. The Judge also directed the High Court Registry to send a copy of the order to the DGP for appropriate action.