The Hindu : High Court refuses to discharge MDMK leaders from POTA cases

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Feb 18, 2004

Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu

High Court refuses to discharge MDMK leaders from POTA cases

By A. Subramani

CHENNAI, FEB. 17. The Madras High Court today declined to discharge eight Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam leaders from the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) charges, saying "it cannot be said that there is no scope for convicting the accused for the offences they are charged with."

A Division Bench comprising Justice V.S. Sirpurkar and Justice F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, upholding a similar order of rejection passed by the special judge for POTA cases, said the trial court order passed in July 2002 was interlocutory and "an appeal against it would not be possible because of an express bar in Section 34(1) of POTA."

Madurai Ganesan, Azhagusundaram, Ganesamoorthy, Veera. Ilavarasan, Boominathan, Sevanthiappan, P.S. Maniam and S. Nagarajan were charged with arranging for or managing or assisting in holding a public meeting at Tirumangalam near Madurai on June 29, 2002 to further activities of the banned Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. In July 2002, the special judge dismissed their discharge applications stating that there was prima facie material available on record to frame charges against them.

In the present appeals, counsel for the accused, K.S. Dinakaran, argued that a mere public declaration of support to an organisation could not be covered under Section 21 of POTA unless it was invited with an intention of doing or supporting a terrorist act.

The public prosecutor, I. Subramanian, however, questioned the very maintainability of the appeals, stating the impugned order was purely interlocutory and that no appeal could be maintained by the court. "There would be no propriety for the High Court to decide the appeals, particularly because the trial had already begun and it had been directed to be completed by June 2004."

Concurring with the submissions, the Division Bench said the trial court dismissing the discharge applications, on the ground that there existed grounds for further proceedings and then proceeding to frame the charges would clearly establish that the impugned ruling was interlocutory and hence no appeal would lie against it in view of a specific bar.

Citing a High Court direction to complete the trial by June 2004, the judges said the trial was being conducted daily and that eight witnesses were already examined. "Thus, not only the trial has commenced, but it has reached a stage of recording of evidence. At this juncture, it would be really difficult for us to appreciate the whole material with a view to examining whether there existed a prima facie case against the accused. Any expression on our part would certainly affect the trial."

`Prima facie material exists'

The judges also said they were "completely satisfied with the order of the trial court holding that there existed prima facie material for proceeding with the trial," and "if the lectures (by the accused) are considered at their face value, there would certainly be prima facie material against the accused. There is material on record to suggest that unstinted support (for the LTTE) was declared." The judges then dismissed all three appeals, stating there was no case for discharging the accused.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Tamil Nadu