The Hindu : Tamil Nadu News : Receive complaint from Sun TV network: court

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Aug 20, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu

Receive complaint from Sun TV network: court

Special Correspondent

Royal Cable Vision accused of illegal tapping of signals

Tapping is done scientifically: petitioner
Police charged with being silent spectator

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Tuesday said if the Madurai police receive any complaint from Sun TV Network Limited regarding illegal tapping of its signals, the police will have to take cognisance of the same and investigate it without returning it.

If the Inspectors of the police stations concerned, cited as respondents in the petitioner’s affidavit, refuse to entertain complaints or fail to investigate them, the petitioner has to avail itself of the remedy available under sections 154 (3) (Information in cognisable cases), 156 (3) (Police officer’s power to investigate cognisable case) and 200 (Examination of complainant) Cr.P.C, Justice K.Venkataraman said in his order.

The television network filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Home Secretary to instruct the police — the Madurai Police Commissioner and nine Inspectors — to receive the petitioner’s complaints with regard to illegal tapping of signals, register the same and take action.

During arguments, petitioner’s senior counsel, Vijay Narayanan, submitted that Royal Cable Vision (RCV), which had started multi-system operator in Madurai, had started illegal tapping of the petitioner’s signals. The activity was being carried on in a scientific manner from various sources at the head-end. When complaints were lodged, the police authorities remained a silent spectator.

Additional Advocate-General S. Ramasamy, appearing for the official respondents, submitted that the petitioner’s allegations were totally without substance.

On receipt of complaints by tapal, they had been assigned CSR (community service register) numbers and an investigation was conducted by the police Inspectors.

In his order, Mr. Justice Venkataraman, referring to judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Court, said the remedy for the petitioner did not lie before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The remedy lay in taking recourse to the Cr.P.C. The Judge said he was not inclined to grant the petitioner’s omnibus prayer.

Mr. Justice Venkataraman said a disturbing factor was that some Inspectors of Police had returned the petitioner’s complaints sent by post without even opening them. The authorities could not shut their eyes to entertaining the complaint being received by post.

Further, some covers had been returned on the ground that the Inspector of Police concerned was not available at the police station. Even if the Inspector was not available, some one else in the police station could have received the complaints.

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

Tamil Nadu