K.M. Rafiudeen Alias Rafique Vs. the Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Madras and Others

Decided On : Nov-29-1995

Court : Chennai

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]
Code Context


$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K.M. Rafiudeen Alias Rafique Vs. the Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Madras and Others Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Article 21 of the Constitution of India',
			(int) 1 => 'Section 135',
			(int) 2 => 'the Customs Act',
			(int) 3 => 'Section 3',
			(int) 4 => 'the COFEPOSA Act',
			(int) 5 => 'the Medical Officers at',
			(int) 6 => 'Article 21',
			(int) 7 => 'Article 21',
			(int) 8 => 'Article 21',
			(int) 9 => 'the Customs Act',
			(int) 10 => 'the Customs Act',
			(int) 11 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution',
			(int) 12 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution',
			(int) 13 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Rafique',
			(int) 1 => 'Kajamoideen',
			(int) 2 => 'the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence',
			(int) 3 => 'the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate',
			(int) 4 => 'Sethuraman',
			(int) 5 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 6 => 'Dorai',
			(int) 7 => 'the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence',
			(int) 8 => 'Srinivasan',
			(int) 9 => 'Sethuraman',
			(int) 10 => 'Ramachandra Medical College',
			(int) 11 => 'Porar',
			(int) 12 => 'DRI Officers',
			(int) 13 => 'DRI',
			(int) 14 => 'Sethuraman',
			(int) 15 => 'DRI',
			(int) 16 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 17 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 18 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 19 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 20 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 21 => 'DRI',
			(int) 22 => 'Court',
			(int) 23 => 'Court',
			(int) 24 => 'Habeas Corpus Petition',
			(int) 25 => 'Court',
			(int) 26 => 'Habeas Corpus Petition',
			(int) 27 => 'Court',
			(int) 28 => 'This Habeas Corpus Petition',
			(int) 29 => 'Court',
			(int) 30 => 'the Dean, Government General Hospital',
			(int) 31 => 'Registry',
			(int) 32 => 'the Dean, Government General Hospital',
			(int) 33 => 'Sethuraman',
			(int) 34 => 'Government General Hospital',
			(int) 35 => 'DRI',
			(int) 36 => 'T. Nagar',
			(int) 37 => 'Abrasion - Mucoosa',
			(int) 38 => 'Cane',
			(int) 39 => 'Cane',
			(int) 40 => 'DRI',
			(int) 41 => 'ENT',
			(int) 42 => 'Sethuraman',
			(int) 43 => 'Directorate of Revenue Intelligence',
			(int) 44 => 'the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation',
			(int) 45 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 46 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 47 => 'DRI',
			(int) 48 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 49 => 'DRI',
			(int) 50 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 51 => 'Court',
			(int) 52 => 'DRI',
			(int) 53 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 54 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 55 => 'DRI',
			(int) 56 => 'Department',
			(int) 57 => 'Departmental',
			(int) 58 => 'Habeas Corpus Petition',
			(int) 59 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 60 => 'DRI',
			(int) 61 => 'DRI',
			(int) 62 => 'Government General Hospital',
			(int) 63 => 'DRI',
			(int) 64 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 65 => 'DRI',
			(int) 66 => 'DRI',
			(int) 67 => 'DRI',
			(int) 68 => 'Counsel',
			(int) 69 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 70 => 'Court',
			(int) 71 => 'DRI',
			(int) 72 => 'DRI',
			(int) 73 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 74 => 'DRI',
			(int) 75 => 'Government General Hospital',
			(int) 76 => 'Public Prosecutor',
			(int) 77 => 'The New Remand Admission Book',
			(int) 78 => 'this Remand Admission Book',
			(int) 79 => 'I.O.',
			(int) 80 => 'DRI',
			(int) 81 => 'Sethuraman',
			(int) 82 => 'Sethuraman',
			(int) 83 => 'the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's',
			(int) 84 => 'DRI',
			(int) 85 => 'T. Nagar',
			(int) 86 => 'DRI',
			(int) 87 => 'Public Prosecutor',
			(int) 88 => 'Counsel',
			(int) 89 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 90 => 'State',
			(int) 91 => 'State',
			(int) 92 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 93 => 'State',
			(int) 94 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 95 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 96 => 'the High Courts',
			(int) 97 => 'State',
			(int) 98 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 99 => 'the High Courts',
			(int) 100 => 'State',
			(int) 101 => 'Court',
			(int) 102 => 'Court',
			(int) 103 => 'Habeas Corpus Petitions',
			(int) 104 => 'Ratnavel Pandian',
			(int) 105 => 'Customs',
			(int) 106 => 'the Customs Department',
			(int) 107 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 108 => 'Uttar Pradesh',
			(int) 109 => 'Court',
			(int) 110 => 'DRI',
			(int) 111 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 112 => 'DRI',
			(int) 113 => 'DRI',
			(int) 114 => 'DRI',
			(int) 115 => 'DRI',
			(int) 116 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 117 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 118 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 119 => 'DRI',
			(int) 120 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 121 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 122 => 'DRI',
			(int) 123 => 'the New Remand Admission Book',
			(int) 124 => 'the Dean, Government General Hospital',
			(int) 125 => 'Sethuraman',
			(int) 126 => 'the New Remand Admission Book',
			(int) 127 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 128 => 'Sethuraman',
			(int) 129 => 'DRI',
			(int) 130 => 'DRI',
			(int) 131 => 'DRI',
			(int) 132 => 'DRI',
			(int) 133 => 'DRI',
			(int) 134 => 'the Commissioner of Police',
			(int) 135 => 'DRI',
			(int) 136 => 'State',
			(int) 137 => 'This Habeas Corpus Petition'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Habeas Corpus',
			(int) 1 => 'Madras',
			(int) 2 => 'Menakshisundaram',
			(int) 3 => 'Setharaman',
			(int) 4 => 'Madras',
			(int) 5 => 'T. Nagar',
			(int) 6 => 'Madras',
			(int) 7 => 'Egnore',
			(int) 8 => 'Madras',
			(int) 9 => 'Dorai',
			(int) 10 => 'Dorai',
			(int) 11 => 'T. Nagar',
			(int) 12 => 'Madras',
			(int) 13 => 'Majid Bai',
			(int) 14 => 'Madras',
			(int) 15 => 'Madras',
			(int) 16 => 'Madras',
			(int) 17 => 'Refiudeen',
			(int) 18 => 'X-Ray',
			(int) 19 => 'Meenakshisundaram',
			(int) 20 => 'elbow',
			(int) 21 => 'X-Ray',
			(int) 22 => 'Detenu Sethuraman',
			(int) 23 => 'C. Rajendran',
			(int) 24 => 'T. Nagar',
			(int) 25 => 'Habeas Corpus',
			(int) 26 => 'Sethuraman',
			(int) 27 => 'Madras',
			(int) 28 => 'M. Abdul Nazeer',
			(int) 29 => 'Madras',
			(int) 30 => 'P. Rajamanickam',
			(int) 31 => 'Ganabalan',
			(int) 32 => 'Madras',
			(int) 33 => 'Madras',
			(int) 34 => 'Madras',
			(int) 35 => 'Madras',
			(int) 36 => 'B. Sriramulu',
			(int) 37 => 'K. Balakrishnan',
			(int) 38 => 'Gunabalan',
			(int) 39 => 'Madras',
			(int) 40 => 'Refiudeen',
			(int) 41 => 'Sundaram',
			(int) 42 => 'Refiudeen',
			(int) 43 => 'Madras',
			(int) 44 => 'Gunabalan',
			(int) 45 => 'I.O.',
			(int) 46 => 'Sepoy Janakaraj',
			(int) 47 => 'P. Rajamanickam',
			(int) 48 => 'Gunabalan',
			(int) 49 => 'Rajamanickam',
			(int) 50 => 'Gunabalan',
			(int) 51 => 'B. Sriramala',
			(int) 52 => 'P. Rajamanickam',
			(int) 53 => 'J.',
			(int) 54 => 'Roshan Beevi v.',
			(int) 55 => 'Tamil Nadu',
			(int) 56 => 'Cri LJ',
			(int) 57 => 'P. Rajamanickam',
			(int) 58 => 'P. Rajamanickam',
			(int) 59 => 'Sethuraman',
			(int) 60 => 'P. Rajamanickam',
			(int) 61 => 'P. Rajamanickam',
			(int) 62 => 'Madras'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '7-9-1995',
			(int) 1 => '30-8-1995',
			(int) 2 => 'a little earlier',
			(int) 3 => '1 1/2 days',
			(int) 4 => '1995',
			(int) 5 => '8-9-1995',
			(int) 6 => '11-9-1995',
			(int) 7 => 'about 32 years',
			(int) 8 => 'about 36 years',
			(int) 9 => 'about 30 years',
			(int) 10 => '11-9-1995',
			(int) 11 => 'October, 1995',
			(int) 12 => '467',
			(int) 13 => '1992',
			(int) 14 => 'the next day',
			(int) 15 => 'the next day',
			(int) 16 => '31-10-1995',
			(int) 17 => '89297',
			(int) 18 => '89298',
			(int) 19 => '1983',
			(int) 20 => '1984',
			(int) 21 => '1956CriLJ152',
			(int) 22 => '31-8-1995'
		),
		'LOC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Central Prison',
			(int) 1 => 'Central Prison',
			(int) 2 => 'Sundar',
			(int) 3 => 'the Central Prison',
			(int) 4 => 'Madras',
			(int) 5 => 'Superintendent',
			(int) 6 => 'Madras',
			(int) 7 => 'Madras',
			(int) 8 => 'the Central Prison',
			(int) 9 => 'the Central Prison',
			(int) 10 => 'Central Prison',
			(int) 11 => 'Central Prison',
			(int) 12 => 'Central Prison',
			(int) 13 => 'Madras',
			(int) 14 => 'Govt',
			(int) 15 => 'Madras'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'two',
			(int) 1 => '31-8-1995',
			(int) 2 => 'about 7-15 p.m.',
			(int) 3 => 'three',
			(int) 4 => 'one',
			(int) 5 => 'one',
			(int) 6 => 'one',
			(int) 7 => 'two',
			(int) 8 => 'three',
			(int) 9 => 'one',
			(int) 10 => 'one',
			(int) 11 => '31-8-1995',
			(int) 12 => 'two',
			(int) 13 => '30-8-1995',
			(int) 14 => '31-8-1995',
			(int) 15 => '2.',
			(int) 16 => 'three',
			(int) 17 => '7',
			(int) 18 => 'three',
			(int) 19 => '3',
			(int) 20 => 'three',
			(int) 21 => 'three',
			(int) 22 => '13',
			(int) 23 => 'three',
			(int) 24 => '30-8-1995',
			(int) 25 => 'ten',
			(int) 26 => '1',
			(int) 27 => '2',
			(int) 28 => '2',
			(int) 29 => '3',
			(int) 30 => '4',
			(int) 31 => '5',
			(int) 32 => '6',
			(int) 33 => '7',
			(int) 34 => '8',
			(int) 35 => '9',
			(int) 36 => '10',
			(int) 37 => '1',
			(int) 38 => '11/3',
			(int) 39 => '1/3',
			(int) 40 => '1/3',
			(int) 41 => '2',
			(int) 42 => '3',
			(int) 43 => '4',
			(int) 44 => '1/3',
			(int) 45 => '5',
			(int) 46 => '6',
			(int) 47 => '30-8-95',
			(int) 48 => '5',
			(int) 49 => 'two',
			(int) 50 => '6',
			(int) 51 => 'two',
			(int) 52 => '31-8-1995',
			(int) 53 => '2',
			(int) 54 => '471',
			(int) 55 => '420',
			(int) 56 => '30-8-1995',
			(int) 57 => 'three',
			(int) 58 => '30-8-1995',
			(int) 59 => 'three',
			(int) 60 => '31-8-1995',
			(int) 61 => '30-8-1985',
			(int) 62 => '8',
			(int) 63 => '30-8-1995',
			(int) 64 => '31-8-1995',
			(int) 65 => '31-8-1995',
			(int) 66 => 'three',
			(int) 67 => '30-8-1995',
			(int) 68 => '9',
			(int) 69 => 'two',
			(int) 70 => 'two',
			(int) 71 => '30-8-1995',
			(int) 72 => 'three',
			(int) 73 => 'two',
			(int) 74 => '10',
			(int) 75 => 'three',
			(int) 76 => '31-8-1995',
			(int) 77 => '11',
			(int) 78 => '18-6-1995',
			(int) 79 => '31-8-1995',
			(int) 80 => 'two',
			(int) 81 => '12',
			(int) 82 => '27-8-1995',
			(int) 83 => '37',
			(int) 84 => '31-8-1995',
			(int) 85 => 'three',
			(int) 86 => '89296 to 89398',
			(int) 87 => '13',
			(int) 88 => 'three',
			(int) 89 => '30-8-1995',
			(int) 90 => '14',
			(int) 91 => 'two',
			(int) 92 => '15',
			(int) 93 => 'three',
			(int) 94 => 'two',
			(int) 95 => '16',
			(int) 96 => '226',
			(int) 97 => '17',
			(int) 98 => 'three',
			(int) 99 => 'three',
			(int) 100 => '289',
			(int) 101 => '153',
			(int) 102 => '107',
			(int) 103 => '108',
			(int) 104 => 'three',
			(int) 105 => 'three',
			(int) 106 => '30-8-1995',
			(int) 107 => 'about 7-15 p.m.',
			(int) 108 => '31-8-1995',
			(int) 109 => 'three',
			(int) 110 => 'three',
			(int) 111 => 'two',
			(int) 112 => '30-8-1995',
			(int) 113 => 'three',
			(int) 114 => 'about 7-15 p.m.',
			(int) 115 => 'two',
			(int) 116 => 'two',
			(int) 117 => 'two',
			(int) 118 => '18',
			(int) 119 => 'two',
			(int) 120 => 'three',
			(int) 121 => '19',
			(int) 122 => 'two',
			(int) 123 => '20'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Sundar',
			(int) 1 => 'Meenakshisundaram',
			(int) 2 => 'Sundar',
			(int) 3 => 'Sundar',
			(int) 4 => 'Meenakshisundaram',
			(int) 5 => 'Rafiudeen',
			(int) 6 => 'Meenakshisundaram',
			(int) 7 => 'Rafiudeen',
			(int) 8 => 'Sethu',
			(int) 9 => 'the Full Bench',
			(int) 10 => 'Cri LJ 134',
			(int) 11 => 'Meenakshisundaram',
			(int) 12 => 'Sundar'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'R.R.',
			(int) 1 => 'E.O.I.',
			(int) 2 => 'Ibrahim',
			(int) 3 => 'Malena',
			(int) 4 => 'Counsel',
			(int) 5 => 'Balakrishnan',
			(int) 6 => 'Sethu',
			(int) 7 => 'Balakrishnan',
			(int) 8 => 'Counsel',
			(int) 9 => 'Balaksrishnan',
			(int) 10 => 'Balakrishnan',
			(int) 11 => 'Sethuraman'
		),
		'TIME' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'about 12.30 noon',
			(int) 1 => 'late in the evening',
			(int) 2 => '7-00 p.m.',
			(int) 3 => '9-9-1995',
			(int) 4 => 'the evening',
			(int) 5 => '2-00 p.m.',
			(int) 6 => '7-15 p.m.',
			(int) 7 => 'the evening',
			(int) 8 => '9-15 p.m.',
			(int) 9 => 'the afternoon',
			(int) 10 => 'twenty-four hours',
			(int) 11 => '9.15 p.m.',
			(int) 12 => 'the afternoon',
			(int) 13 => 'Several hours later',
			(int) 14 => '9-9-1995'
		),
		'FAC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Angappa Naicken Street',
			(int) 1 => 'Madras Harbour',
			(int) 2 => 'the Central Prison'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'third',
			(int) 1 => 'first',
			(int) 2 => 'third',
			(int) 3 => 'first',
			(int) 4 => '9th',
			(int) 5 => 'first',
			(int) 6 => 'first',
			(int) 7 => 'second',
			(int) 8 => 'first',
			(int) 9 => 'third',
			(int) 10 => 'first',
			(int) 11 => 'first',
			(int) 12 => 'first',
			(int) 13 => 'second',
			(int) 14 => 'second',
			(int) 15 => 'first',
			(int) 16 => 'second',
			(int) 17 => 'first',
			(int) 18 => 'first'
		),
		'EVENT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'H.C.M.P. No'
		),
		'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Superintendent of Central Prison'
		),
		'QUANTITY' => array(
			(int) 0 => '0.5 cm',
			(int) 1 => '10 cm',
			(int) 2 => '4 x 1 cm',
			(int) 3 => '10 cm',
			(int) 4 => '10 x 7 cm',
			(int) 5 => '3 x 2 cm',
			(int) 6 => '10 x 2 cm',
			(int) 7 => '10 x 1 cm',
			(int) 8 => '3 cm',
			(int) 9 => '10-9-1995'
		),
		'MONEY' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'three marks',
			(int) 1 => 'three marks'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Nathu v. State',
			(int) 1 => 'contra'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '787510',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 21, 32 and 226; <a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 120B, 420, 467 and 471',
			'appealno' => 'H.C.P. No. 1363 of 1995',
			'appellant' => 'K.M. Rafiudeen Alias Rafique',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.M. Rafiudeen Alias Rafique Vs. the Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Madras and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - habeas corpus - Article 21 of Constitution of India - petitioner sought to issue habeas corpus for production of himself and two others remanded in prison so that they could be set at liberty - further plea was for compensation award against officials of revenue intelligence - infringement of indefeasible rights of petitioner and other detenues in custody - through violence practiced by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence officials petitioner and other detenues sustained injuries - violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 - detenues can claim for compensation after disposal of criminal proceedings - criminal proceedings directed to initiated against erring officials.


 -  -  He has further made a plea for award of compensation as well for directions for initiation of appropriate legal proceedings, against erring officials of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, T. He was kept illegally in their office for 1 1/2 days and it was made to appear that the statement was voluntarily given by him on 31-8-1995. The officers took him and others to the Magistrate late in the evening after warning them that they should not complain about ill treatment, to the Magistrate, when produced before him. The officers were able to effectively prevent them from complaining to the Magistrate. The patient also complained of giddiness and pain over the left thigh, left leg and left side of abdomen. foot +Meenakshisundaram also complained to the doctor that he was assaulted by DRI men on the evening of 30-8-95 with lathies and boots. The deponent has stated, that prayers regarding initiation of appropriate legal proceedings as well award of compensation against the erring officials, will not arise. He has prayed for dismissal of the main Habeas Corpus Petition as well as the H. Petitioner has underlined in the reply affidavit, that allegations of ill-treatment by DRI officials against him and others have been proved by the wounds and injuries found and recorded by jail authorities at the time of admission in jail, as well by the reports submitted by the doctors of Government General Hospital, Madras, who had noticed multiple injuries on them. He then argued, that if the case of the petitioner were to be accepted at this stage, the entire prosecution initiated against the petitioner, the other two detenus as well as their associates, will stand adversely affected. 11. The New Remand Admission Book relates to the period commencing from 18-6-1995 and ending with 10-9-1995. We are satisfied prima facie that this Remand Admission Book has been maintained in the regular course of business. Sriramala, learned Public Prosecutor, representing the second respondent submitted, that these two registers produced by the second respondent, on our directions, clearly show, that they have been maintained in the regular course of business. At the same time, Courts, cannot close their eyes to alleged custodial violence, for it can be termed as one of the worst crimes in a civilised society governed by the rule of law. However, parties on either side affirm that the main foundation for the prosecution case, is the confession statements allegedly made by these three persons -described as voluntary by the first respondent and condemned as outcome of extortion by the petitioner and others. Rajamanickam, that the learned Magistrate would not have failed to notice the bleeding through mouth, if it had existed, on the petitioner.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Nathu v. State of Uttar Pradesh;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' M. Abdul Nazeer, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' P. Rajamanickam, Special Public Prosecutor and ;B. Srirammalu, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Chennai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1995-11-29',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Jayarama Chouta and ;T.S. Arunachalam, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. Petitioner K.M. Rafiudeen alias Rafique, sons of Kajamoideen, preferred this Habeas Corpus petition on 7-9-1995 when he was detained in Central Prison, Madras, praying for issue of a habeas for production of himself and two others, Menakshisundaram alias Sundar and Setharaman, similarly remanded and kept in Central Prison, Madras, so that they could be set at liberty. He has further made a plea for award of compensation as well for directions for initiation of appropriate legal proceedings, against erring officials of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, T. Nagar, Madras. In the affidavit sworn to by the petitioner in support of his prayer, he has stated that he was renamed to judicial custody on 31-8-1995 in R.R. No. 93/95 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.I., Egnore, Madras, at or about 7-15 p.m., along with Meenakshisundaram alias Sundar and Sethuraman. The remand report produced before the Magistrate pleading for judicial custody relies upon statements made by the three of them, which was extorted, petitioner would have it that at or about 12.30 noon on 30-8-1995, when he was proceeding to the mosque on his bike from Angappa Naicken Street, one Dorai, already known to him, enquired if he would required perfumes, torch-lights etc. Dorai was having a black colour bag and some files. On noticiting an approaching jeep, Dorai ran away leaving behind the bag. Certain officers who arrived by the jeep, rushed towards him and stopped him. They questioned him about the person who was conversing with him a little earlier. He informed them that Dorai was known to him, since he used to buy from him pant bits and shirt bits. However, he was forcibly taken to the office of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, T. Nagar, Madras. He was beaten and harassed there. He was compelled to write, that he along with his friend Sundar, arranged to export snake skins for one Majid Bai alias Srinivasan, when he informed the authorities that he had no connection whatever with snake-skins, they removed his clothes and beat him with lathies, rulers, hands and legs mercilessly and tortured him, which he was not able to withstand. He was further compelled to write that one Sethuraman also accompanied him to a place near Ramachandra Medical College, Porar and that he had transferred the container in a lorry, which was intercepted by DRI Officers at Madras Harbour. They further pressurised him to write that he knew the persons found in two or three photographs, which were in the possession of these officers. When he refused to accede, he was battered by a batch of DRI officers. After giving further details about the manner of compelling to write more material, the deponent has stated that the officers had also brought Sundar, Sethuraman, Ibrahim and another, to their office and manhandled them with hands, legs, lathies and rulers. Each one of them was kept in a separate room and thereafter the officers of DRI closed the doors and windows, since they were crying, unable to tolerate indiscriminate beating. Petitioner has further specifically stated that one officer hit him on his mouth with his fist resulting in oozing of blood. He was not given any food or permitted to contact any of his friends or family members. Ultimately, he had no option except submitting to the will of the officers and write down according to their dictation, incriminating himself and others. He has certainly stated that his statement was not voluntary, but was the outcome of extortion arising out of physical third degree violence, on his body. He was kept illegally in their office for 1 1/2 days and it was made to appear that the statement was voluntarily given by him on 31-8-1995. The officers took him and others to the Magistrate late in the evening after warning them that they should not complain about ill treatment, to the Magistrate, when produced before him. If they chose to make any such complaint, they would not only object to releasing them on bail, but also would put them behind the bars under COFEPOSA ACT. All of them were produced before the learned Magistrate at his residence. He and other two detenus were unable even to climb the staircase and the officers encircled them to prevent others watching their movements and suffering. The officers were able to effectively prevent them from complaining to the Magistrate. From the house of the Magistrate, they were escorted to the jail. At the Central Prison, Madras, injuries found on them were recorded, at the time of their admission therein. They were treated in the jail hospital. According to the petitioner, such highhanded 'inhuman act', indulged in by the officers of the first respondent was violative of Article 21 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> since law never sanctions either physical violence or extortion of statements by using third degree illegal methods. He has then averred that wounds and injuries on his body were still visible, which would establish that he was beaten by the officers of DRI when he was kept in their illegal custody from 30-8-1995 till 7-00 p.m. on 31-8-1995. He has plead for production of himself and others before this Court, since the injuries were still visible on them, so that the Court could scrutinise the harm meted out to them. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. While entertaining the instant Habeas Corpus Petition, along with H.C.M.P. No. 84 of 1995 preferred for issue of directions to jail authorities to produce all the three of them immediately before this Court for recording of wounds and injuries on their bodies and for directions for immediate medical examination, pending disposal of the main Habeas Corpus Petition, this Court, on 7-9-1995, held that it would be desirable to ascertain the nature of injuries inflicted on the detenus and the treatment given to them for the said purpose. This Court directed that Superintendent of Central Prison, Madras, to produce the three detenus before the Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Madras, on 8-9-1995 for medical examination and for filing of a report with regard to such examination. This Habeas Corpus Petition and the H.C.M.P. was directed to be called again on 11-9-1995. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Some time later, the Superintendent, Central Prison, Madras, forwarded to the registry of this Court, three medical reports issued by the Dean, Government General Hospital, Madras, in respect of the three detenus. This communication was received by the Registry on 13-9-1995. The report of the Dean, Government General Hospital, in respect of the three detenus, shows that Sethuraman, aged about 32 years, Refiudeen, aged about 36 years, and Meenakshisundaram, aged about 30 years, were admitted as in patients in Government General Hospital, Madras, on 9-9-1995 and discharged on 11-9-1995. The doctor who examined Rafiudeen has mentioned in the discharge summary that the victim had told him that he was assaulted by the DRI officials with lathies and shoes on 30-8-1995 at T. Nagar. The history also shows complaint of bleeding from the mouth and of vomititng. The patient also complained of giddiness and pain over the left thigh, left leg and left side of abdomen. The medical officer noticed the following ten injuries of Rafiudeen : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Abrasion - Mucoosa of upper lip. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. Brown coloured contusion Rt. Shoulder (2 x 0.5 cm.) </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. 10 cm. size healed wound - Lt. scapular region. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. Cane mark (4 x 1 cm.) mid-arm left. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Cane mark (reddish brown) 10 cm. over left iliac fossa. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Contusion left thigh - Reddish brown (10 x 7 cm.) - Tender on palpation. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Contusion - lateral to knee joint (3 x 2 cm.) </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Tenderness - left medical malleolus. No deformity. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. Contusion (cane mark) over posterolateral part of right thigh (10 x 2 cm.). </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. Reddish brown (came mark) over medial aspect of left thigh near the knee joint (10 x 1 cm.) X-Ray did not reveal fracture on the right ankle and feet. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On detenu Meenakshisundaram, the same medical officer found the following injuries : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Cane marks on the skin over Rt. shoulder, upper 11/3, lower 1/3, middle 1/3 of the Rt. arm. Superficial contusion. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. Tenderness - Lateral epicondy Lt. elbow. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. Cane marks over the medial aspect of left thigh (superficial) contusion) and Rt. upper arm (reddish brown colour). </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. A 3 cm. abrasion over the medial aspect of lower 1/3 of left thigh-healed (reddish brown scab). </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Tenderness medial malleolus of left leg. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Tenderness - Sole of Rt. foot +. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Meenakshisundaram also complained to the doctor that he was assaulted by DRI men on the evening of 30-8-95 with lathies and boots. He had no history of vomiting, hematosis and Malena, loss of consciousness and ENT bleeding. X-Ray of neck, right foot and ankle did not reveal any fracture. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Detenu Sethuraman was also examined by another doctor and he had the same complaint to make as the other two detenus. Medical Officer found reddish brown cane marks over the left shin of Sethuraman, and three marks over the left wrist and hand. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Copies of the Medical report were furnished to the petitioner and the respondents. A detailed counter-affidavit has been sworn to on behalf of the first respondent by C. Rajendran, Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, T. Nagar, Madras-17. This counter-affidavit was sworn to on 9th October, 1995, apparently after receiving copies of the medical report. The deponent has claimed that the petitioner and two others were arrested on 31-8-1995 and yet another person was arrested on 2-9-1995. The circumstances under which such arrests had taken place have been detailed in the counter-affidavit, about which we are not concerned in this Habeas Corpus petition. It is the case of the respondents that these detenus have committed offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 467, 471 and 420, I.P.C. apart from commission of offences under Section 135 of the Customs Act read with Section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. He has further stated, that Meenakshisundaram and Sethuraman was apprehended on 30-8-1995 and they had given voluntary statements admitting their roles in the crime. There is no dispute, in the counter-affidavit, that these three persons were apprehended on 30-8-1995 and enquired, though the arrest was on the next day at 2-00 p.m. The counter-affidavit also admits that all the three detenu were produced before the Magistrate at 7-15 p.m. on 31-8-1995. It has been specifically pointed out in the counter-affidavit that before the Magistrate, none of the detenus had whispered about any ill-treatment or assault by any officer of the DRI or injuries having been sustained by them or even about any statements having been extorted from them, as now alleged. The deponent has further averred in his counter-affidavit, that if the averments made by the petitioner now, were true, he would have definitely alleged before the remanding Magistrate that he was assaulted by DRI officers and he was forced to write a statement and would have also shown the injuries on his person to the Magistrate. This piece of conduct itself, according to the depondent, was enough to establish that the allegations now trotted out in the affidavit of the petitioners, were totally false and have been coined to make out a case before this Court in order to create a defence and intimidate the officers concerned in the detection of this offence. The counter-affidavit denies that the detenus were compelled to write down the statements, in spite of their involvement in the impugned crime. The allegations made by the petitioner that the detenus were kept in separate rooms and they were manhandled with hands, legs and rulers, after closing the doors and windows, since they were crying, have been denied. In short, every allegation made in petitioner's affidavit, has been denied in the counter-affidavit. The first respondent has also stated, that the petitioner had given out his first statement on 30-8-1985 itself and the second statement was written by him on the next day, after seizure was effected. He has denied, about DRI officials having coerced the detenus from complaining to the Magistrate by threatening them with detention under the COFEPOSA Act, or opposition to bail, in the event of disclosure. The deponent would have it that if the detenus had suffered such serious injuries as alleged, it would not have escaped the notice of the Magistrate. The counter-affidavit further adds that for the injuries said to have been recorded by the jail authorities, namely, bruises, contusions, etc., at the time of remand, the officials of the DRI cannot be held responsible for the reasons set out earlier. The officers of the Department were not concerned with the alleged ill-treatment or alleged injuries, for which Departmental officers were not responsible. The first respondent has reiterated in the counter-affidavit that no illegal act was committed. The deponent has stated, that prayers regarding initiation of appropriate legal proceedings as well award of compensation against the erring officials, will not arise. He has prayed for dismissal of the main Habeas Corpus Petition as well as the H.C.M.P. as unsustainable on facts and law. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Petitioner has sworn to reply affidavit on 31-10-1995, wherein he has reiterated his definite case. He has then stated that the medical reports now available would suffice to prove, that false and involuntary statements stood recorded from him and other detenus by use of third decree methods. According to him, the first respondent cannot take a stand that they had not complained to the Magistrate about ill-treatment after having effectively prevented them from making any such complaint. He has affirmed that DRI officials were responsible for the injuries found on their bodies, proved by the jail admission records and medical reports. Petitioner has underlined in the reply affidavit, that allegations of ill-treatment by DRI officials against him and others have been proved by the wounds and injuries found and recorded by jail authorities at the time of admission in jail, as well by the reports submitted by the doctors of Government General Hospital, Madras, who had noticed multiple injuries on them. Award of compensation and initiation of appropriate action against erring officials have again been reiterated in the counter-affidavit. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. M. Abdul Nazeer, petitioner's learned Counsel, graphically described before us the case of the petitioner narrated in his affidavit and reply affidavit and emphasised that the detenus, inclusive of the petitioner, who were apprehend on 30-8-1995, and allegedly arrested on 31-8-1995, were wholly in the custody of the DRI officials till they were handed over to prison authorities after obtaining remand from the concerned Magistrate on the evening of 31-8-1995. He pointed out that the petitioner and other detenus had apparently sustained injuries found on them when they were in the custody of DRI officials, for, in the Central Prison, Madras, when they were examined physically, injuries were noticed on all of them, which were entered in the jail registers, before they were sent for treatment to the prison doctor. He pointed out, that custody of all the three of them by DRI officials from 30-8-1995 till handing over to prison authorities, stands admitted and if that be so, the DRI officials were bound to account for the injuries found on them. Of course, he attacked the confession statements as being the outcome of torture and coercion. He contended that every one of the prayers made by the petitioner, deserved to be upheld. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Mr. P. Rajamanickam, learned Counsel representing the first respondent referred to several paragraphs of the counter-affidavit and submitted, that the whole claim of the petitioner that he and two other were injured while in custody, must be held to be false, since the telling circumstance of bleeding through mouth by the petitioner could not have escaped the attention of the learned Magistrate when they were produced for remand before him. He submitted that the petitioner and two others, in conjunction with others, have committed very serious offences and with a view to escape from the clutches of law, they have trotted out a case of torture, so that it could be used as the main plank of defence at a later stage. However, when questioned by the Court, he admitted that commencing from the time of apprehension on 30-8-1995, till they were produced before the prison authorities, all the three of them were in the custody of the DRI officials. He added that DRI officials Ganabalan and Balakrishnan were the persons who escorted the petitioner and the other detenus to the learned Magistrate and later to the jail premises. He submitted that the DRI officials have already taken expert medical opinion and they will be able to disprove, at the appropriate time, that these persons could not have sustained the injuries noticed by prison authorities and the Medical Officers at Government General Hospital, Madras, at the time and in the manner alleged. He then argued, that if the case of the petitioner were to be accepted at this stage, the entire prosecution initiated against the petitioner, the other two detenus as well as their associates, will stand adversely affected. He did urge, that the confessions recorded from these persons, would, of course, be the main plank of the prosecution. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Since the petitioner has made specific allegations in his affidavit that the jail authorities had noticed injuries on all the three of them, soon after production at the Central Prison, Madras, we deemed it necessary to call for the remand admission book relating to 31-8-1995 from Central Prison, Madras. We also directed production of the admission book at Central Prison, Madras, relating to the date, with which we are now concerned. Mr. B. Sriramulu, learned Public Prosecutor, obtained the same from the prison authorities and placed them for our scrutiny. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The New Remand Admission Book relates to the period commencing from 18-6-1995 and ending with 10-9-1995. We are satisfied prima facie that this Remand Admission Book has been maintained in the regular course of business. This admission book shows that no production by K. Balakrishnan and Gunabalan, I.O., DRI, Madras, Refiudeen (89296) was received at the Central Prison on 31-8-1995. At that point of time, a contusion on the upper lip of Rafiudeen was noticed. He has also swelling due to beating on his left hand and right shoulder. Meenakshisundaram alias Sundaram, who was received in prison along with Refiudeen had swelling due to beating on his left shoulder and he had similar swellings on his feet. His serial number is 89297. Sethuraman alias Sethu was also received in prison along with the other two, on production by the officials mentioned earlier and his serial number is 89298. No mention has been made in this admission book of any injuries noticed on Sethuraman alias Sethu. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The Admission Book commencing from 27-8-1995, at page 37 shows that at 9-15 p.m. on 31-8-1995, on the orders from the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Madras, through DRI, T. Nagar, Gunabalan and Balakrishnan, I.O. and Sepoy Janakaraj, these three persons serially number as 89296 to 89398 were admitted in Central Prison, Madras. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Mr. P. Rajamanickam, first respondent's learned Counsel, requested our permission to peruse the prison registers and we acceded to his request. After perusing the registers, he commented that the signatures of Gunabalan and Balaksrishnan have not been obtained in the registers. When we questioned Mr. Rajamanickam as to why he was pointing out non-obtaining of signatures, he contended that in certain cases, signatures, have been obtained from those who had produced the remand prisoners and the same was conspicuously absent in this instance. However, he did not dispute that Gunabalan and Balakrishnan, officials of DRI, had produced these three persons before the prison authorities, after continuous custody with them from the afternoon of 30-8-1995. He pleaded for dismissal of this Habeas Corpus Petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Mr. B. Sriramala, learned Public Prosecutor, representing the second respondent submitted, that these two registers produced by the second respondent, on our directions, clearly show, that they have been maintained in the regular course of business. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. We have narrated all the facts brought to our notice by counsel, three in number. Of course, as rightly contended by Mr. P. Rajamanickam, after respondent's learned Counsel, the offences alleged against the petitioner and two other detenus, are of a serious nature and the prosecution against them will have to be allowed to reach its logical termination. At the same time, Courts, cannot close their eyes to alleged custodial violence, for it can be termed as one of the worst crimes in a civilised society governed by the rule of law. Quite often, the Supreme Court has observed that convicts, prisoners or undertrials are not denuded of their fundamental rights under Article 21 and it is only such restrictions, as are permitted by law, which can be imposed on the enjoyment of the fundamental right by such persons. It is an obligation of the State of ensure that there is no infringement of the indefeasible rights of a citizen of life, except in accordance with proceeding established by law, while the citizen is in its custody, whether he be a suspect undertrial or convict. The duty of care on the part of the State is strict and admits of no exception. The wrongdoer is accountable and the State is responsible if the person in custody of the police stood deprived of his life, except according to the procedure established by law. Again, the Supreme Court has consistently held that while granting relief to a victim for infraction and invasion of his rights guaranteed under Article 21, it is not always enough to relegate him to the ordinary remedy of a civil suit to claim damages for the tortious act of the State, as that remedy in private law indeed is available to the aggrieved party. The Courts have the obligation to satisfy the social aspirations of the citizens, because the Courts and the law are for the people and expected to respond to their aspirations. The primary source of the public law proceedings stems from the prerogative writs and the Courts have therefore, to evolve 'new tools' to give relief in public law by moulding it according to the situation with a view to preserve and protect the rule of law. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. It is also evident from the pronouncements of the Supreme Court that the Supreme Court and the High Courts, being the protectors of the civil liberties of the citizen, have not only the power and jurisdiction, but also an obligation to grant relief in exercising of their jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 to a victim, whose fundamental rights under Article 21 are established to have been flagrantly infringed by calling upon the State to repair the damage done by its officers to the fundamental rights of the citizen, notwithstanding the right of the citizen to the remedy, by way of a civil suit or criminal proceedings. The State of course, has the right to be indemnified, by taking such action as may be available to it, against a wrongdoer in accordance with law through appropriate proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. A variety of decided cases have been placed before us, wherein either the Supreme Court or the High Courts have awarded compensation for custodial deaths or violence inflicted on victims, while they were in custody. But, almost in all such cases, the prosecution initiated by the State against those in custody had either abated or stood terminated, while, of course, the prosecution against those erring officials who were responsible for infliction of violence on persons while in their custody, were either pending or had a base of report submitted on enquiry, or were directed to be instituted after investigation. Here is a case where serious offences, which would affect the economy of the country, are alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and other detenus and their associates. Of course, these three detenus have enough opportunity to defend themselves and put forth their innocence before the trial Court. Equally, it will be possible for the prosecuting agency, on the basis of the evidence to be placed before the trial Court, to demand a conviction. That exercise is always open to both parties and that may not have to detain as generally in Habeas Corpus Petitions of this nature. However, parties on either side affirm that the main foundation for the prosecution case, is the confession statements allegedly made by these three persons - described as voluntary by the first respondent and condemned as outcome of extortion by the petitioner and others. If such confessions were voluntary or otherwise, may have again to attract the attention of the learned trial Judge. It will be relevant at this stage to refer to the observations of Ratnavel Pandian, J., as he then was, speaking on behalf of the Full Bench, in Roshan Beevi v. Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Public Dept., 1983 Mad LW (Cri) 289 : 1984 Cri LJ 134). The observations read as hereunder (at p. 153 of Cri LJ) : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'If, in a given case, the Customs Officials detains any person required or summoned under the provisions of the Customs Act for a prolonged period, even exceeding twenty-four hours, or keeps him in closed doors and a captive prisoner surrounded by officials or locks him in a room or confines him to an office premises, he does so at his peril, because Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act do not authorise the Officer belonging to the Customs Department to detain a person for a prolonged custody and deprive him of the elementary facilities and privileges to which he is entitled. In such a situation, the officer must be held to have over-stepped his limits, and any confessional statement obtained from such a person by keeping him a prolonged custody has to be regard with grave suspicion, because there is always room for criticism that such a confession might have been obtained from extorted mal-treatment or induced by improper means. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Nathu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, : 1956CriLJ152 , the prolonged custody may stamp the confessional statement so obtained as involuntary one, and the intrinsic value of such a statement may be vitiated.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is thus evident that the question whether a person stood kept in prolonged custody, or he was inflicted with violence while in such custody, are questions of fact, which have to be carefully considered as against the background of circumstances, disclosed in each case. Naturally, no inflexible standards for universal guidance could be laid down. Since the confession statements of those three persons will be the basic material before the trial Court, on which either party would depend, to secure advantage in their favour, we are of the opinion that at this stage it will not be prudent for us, to offer a definite opinion as to the right of the petitioner and other detenus to claim compensation by invoking our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, irrespective of the rights available to them in the normal civil forum. At the same time, we are bound to mention that, on the basis of submission made by either party, prima facie, it is evident that these three persons who were apprehended on 30-8-1995 were continuously in the custody of DRI officials, till they were handed over at 9.15 p.m. to the prison authorities on the basis of an order of remand passed by the concerned Magistrate at or about 7-15 p.m. on 31-8-1995, when they were produced for remand. If injuries were found on these three persons, soon after handing over of custody by DRI officials to prison authorities, needless to state, that the DRI officials must be held responsible to account for these injuries. It is all the more relevant in this case, since admittedly the DRI officials were holding these three persons in their custody throughout. In fairness, Mr. P. Rajamanickam must have placed before us the contra expert medical opinion allegedly obtained by the DRI officials, to disprove that the petitioner and the other two detenus, could not have sustained injuries found on them in the manner alleged by them. We are totally unimpressed, with the submission made by Mr. P. Rajamanickam, that the learned Magistrate would not have failed to notice the bleeding through mouth, if it had existed, on the petitioner. We cannot overlook the specific case of the petitioner in his affidavit that he was beaten from 30-8-1995 and the statement recorded from him was on the afternoon of 31-8-1995. It is also the specific case of the petitioner that on fisting on his mouth by an officer, blood started oozing. Several hours later, petitioner was produced before the Magistrate and in that backdrop, it will be odd to expect continuous oozing of blood, to be markedly apparent for visualisation by the Magistrate. Irrespective of the truth or otherwise of the case of the petitioner, which will have to be tested, we cannot ignore his case, at this stage, that all the three of them were surrounded by DRI officials when they were taken to the residence of the Magistrate at or about 7-15 p.m. for the purpose of obtaining remand. The situation in which these persons were produced before the Magistrate, cannot be one beyond our comprehension. We must also state that the records produced by the jail authorities, on our summoning them, prima facie show that except Sethuraman, the other two detenus had visible injuries on them, when they were produced inside the jail campus by the DRI officials. We have perused the two books produced by the second respondent and prima facie it appears that they have been maintained in the regular course of business. The entries in the New Remand Admission Book, coupled with the medical reports furnished to us, by the Dean, Government General Hospital, Madras, show that petitioner and Meenakshisundaram alias Sundar had sustained multiple injuries in different parts of their bodies and cane marks were also visible. The Medical Officer further found reddish brown cane mark over the left shin and three marks over the left hand of Sethuraman, who was examined on 9-9-1995. As to what would be the effect of these injuries noticed on Sethuraman, vis-a-vis non-entry of these injuries in the New Remand Admission Book on 31-8-1995, may have to attract the attention of the trial Magistrate, during the process, of the trial proceedings. It will be neither fair, nor just to accede at this stage to the argument of Mr. P. Rajamanickam that Sethuraman must be held to have not sustained injuries while in custody of the DRI officials. If that emphatic stand of Mr. P. Rajamanickam has to be accepted, equally, we have to accept that the other two persons had sustained injuries only because of violence practised on them by the DRI officials. As we have already stated on the peculiar nature of the case placed before us, we are rather inclined to keep this question of compensation open without offering definite findings, for in our opinion, such a procedure would tend, for the furtherance of the case of justice. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. While the issue of compensation can be kept open, to be decided at a later stage and leaving such right open to be invoked by the petitioner and the other two detenus, under Article 226 of the Constitution, at the appropriate time, we have to still decide the effect of the other prayer made by the petitioner seeking, directions for initiation of appropriate legal proceedings against erring officials of the first respondent. We have already expressed court view that prima facie it appears that the DRI officials may have to explain the injuries found on these three persons, since it is admitted that they were in the custody of the DRI officials throughout. Naturally, as a follow-up, to this view of ours, we have to necessarily direct the Commissioner of Police, Madras, to cause registration of crime against the erring DRI officials on the basis of the affidavit of the petitioner and the records referred to by as (Jail records and medical reports) and have it investigated, leading necessarily to filing of a final report in accordance with law. This exercise, the Commissioner of Police, shall do without any delay. In the event of a positive final report being filed, it will be open to both parties to plead for joint trial of the prosecution initiated by the first respondent against the petitioner and the other detenus and the prosecution against the DRI officials at the instance of the State. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. We reiterate that the claim for compensation made by the petitioner and two others in this Habeas Corpus Petition, has not been rejected or foreclosed for the right to seek this remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution stands kept open by us, if the petitioner and the other detenus so choose to invoke our said jurisdiction at the appropriate time, after disposal of the criminal proceedings. This Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of accordingly. This criminal proceedings shall be proceeded with and terminated, without being influenced by any of the observations made herein. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Order accordingly.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1996CriLJ2938',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Madras and Others',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '787510'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K.M. Rafiudeen Alias Rafique Vs. the Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Madras and Others Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Article 21 of the Constitution of India',
		(int) 1 => 'Section 135',
		(int) 2 => 'the Customs Act',
		(int) 3 => 'Section 3',
		(int) 4 => 'the COFEPOSA Act',
		(int) 5 => 'the Medical Officers at',
		(int) 6 => 'Article 21',
		(int) 7 => 'Article 21',
		(int) 8 => 'Article 21',
		(int) 9 => 'the Customs Act',
		(int) 10 => 'the Customs Act',
		(int) 11 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution',
		(int) 12 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution',
		(int) 13 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Rafique',
		(int) 1 => 'Kajamoideen',
		(int) 2 => 'the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence',
		(int) 3 => 'the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate',
		(int) 4 => 'Sethuraman',
		(int) 5 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 6 => 'Dorai',
		(int) 7 => 'the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence',
		(int) 8 => 'Srinivasan',
		(int) 9 => 'Sethuraman',
		(int) 10 => 'Ramachandra Medical College',
		(int) 11 => 'Porar',
		(int) 12 => 'DRI Officers',
		(int) 13 => 'DRI',
		(int) 14 => 'Sethuraman',
		(int) 15 => 'DRI',
		(int) 16 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 17 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 18 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 19 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 20 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 21 => 'DRI',
		(int) 22 => 'Court',
		(int) 23 => 'Court',
		(int) 24 => 'Habeas Corpus Petition',
		(int) 25 => 'Court',
		(int) 26 => 'Habeas Corpus Petition',
		(int) 27 => 'Court',
		(int) 28 => 'This Habeas Corpus Petition',
		(int) 29 => 'Court',
		(int) 30 => 'the Dean, Government General Hospital',
		(int) 31 => 'Registry',
		(int) 32 => 'the Dean, Government General Hospital',
		(int) 33 => 'Sethuraman',
		(int) 34 => 'Government General Hospital',
		(int) 35 => 'DRI',
		(int) 36 => 'T. Nagar',
		(int) 37 => 'Abrasion - Mucoosa',
		(int) 38 => 'Cane',
		(int) 39 => 'Cane',
		(int) 40 => 'DRI',
		(int) 41 => 'ENT',
		(int) 42 => 'Sethuraman',
		(int) 43 => 'Directorate of Revenue Intelligence',
		(int) 44 => 'the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation',
		(int) 45 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 46 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 47 => 'DRI',
		(int) 48 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 49 => 'DRI',
		(int) 50 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 51 => 'Court',
		(int) 52 => 'DRI',
		(int) 53 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 54 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 55 => 'DRI',
		(int) 56 => 'Department',
		(int) 57 => 'Departmental',
		(int) 58 => 'Habeas Corpus Petition',
		(int) 59 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 60 => 'DRI',
		(int) 61 => 'DRI',
		(int) 62 => 'Government General Hospital',
		(int) 63 => 'DRI',
		(int) 64 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 65 => 'DRI',
		(int) 66 => 'DRI',
		(int) 67 => 'DRI',
		(int) 68 => 'Counsel',
		(int) 69 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 70 => 'Court',
		(int) 71 => 'DRI',
		(int) 72 => 'DRI',
		(int) 73 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 74 => 'DRI',
		(int) 75 => 'Government General Hospital',
		(int) 76 => 'Public Prosecutor',
		(int) 77 => 'The New Remand Admission Book',
		(int) 78 => 'this Remand Admission Book',
		(int) 79 => 'I.O.',
		(int) 80 => 'DRI',
		(int) 81 => 'Sethuraman',
		(int) 82 => 'Sethuraman',
		(int) 83 => 'the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's',
		(int) 84 => 'DRI',
		(int) 85 => 'T. Nagar',
		(int) 86 => 'DRI',
		(int) 87 => 'Public Prosecutor',
		(int) 88 => 'Counsel',
		(int) 89 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 90 => 'State',
		(int) 91 => 'State',
		(int) 92 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 93 => 'State',
		(int) 94 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 95 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 96 => 'the High Courts',
		(int) 97 => 'State',
		(int) 98 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 99 => 'the High Courts',
		(int) 100 => 'State',
		(int) 101 => 'Court',
		(int) 102 => 'Court',
		(int) 103 => 'Habeas Corpus Petitions',
		(int) 104 => 'Ratnavel Pandian',
		(int) 105 => 'Customs',
		(int) 106 => 'the Customs Department',
		(int) 107 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 108 => 'Uttar Pradesh',
		(int) 109 => 'Court',
		(int) 110 => 'DRI',
		(int) 111 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 112 => 'DRI',
		(int) 113 => 'DRI',
		(int) 114 => 'DRI',
		(int) 115 => 'DRI',
		(int) 116 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 117 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 118 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 119 => 'DRI',
		(int) 120 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 121 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 122 => 'DRI',
		(int) 123 => 'the New Remand Admission Book',
		(int) 124 => 'the Dean, Government General Hospital',
		(int) 125 => 'Sethuraman',
		(int) 126 => 'the New Remand Admission Book',
		(int) 127 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 128 => 'Sethuraman',
		(int) 129 => 'DRI',
		(int) 130 => 'DRI',
		(int) 131 => 'DRI',
		(int) 132 => 'DRI',
		(int) 133 => 'DRI',
		(int) 134 => 'the Commissioner of Police',
		(int) 135 => 'DRI',
		(int) 136 => 'State',
		(int) 137 => 'This Habeas Corpus Petition'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Habeas Corpus',
		(int) 1 => 'Madras',
		(int) 2 => 'Menakshisundaram',
		(int) 3 => 'Setharaman',
		(int) 4 => 'Madras',
		(int) 5 => 'T. Nagar',
		(int) 6 => 'Madras',
		(int) 7 => 'Egnore',
		(int) 8 => 'Madras',
		(int) 9 => 'Dorai',
		(int) 10 => 'Dorai',
		(int) 11 => 'T. Nagar',
		(int) 12 => 'Madras',
		(int) 13 => 'Majid Bai',
		(int) 14 => 'Madras',
		(int) 15 => 'Madras',
		(int) 16 => 'Madras',
		(int) 17 => 'Refiudeen',
		(int) 18 => 'X-Ray',
		(int) 19 => 'Meenakshisundaram',
		(int) 20 => 'elbow',
		(int) 21 => 'X-Ray',
		(int) 22 => 'Detenu Sethuraman',
		(int) 23 => 'C. Rajendran',
		(int) 24 => 'T. Nagar',
		(int) 25 => 'Habeas Corpus',
		(int) 26 => 'Sethuraman',
		(int) 27 => 'Madras',
		(int) 28 => 'M. Abdul Nazeer',
		(int) 29 => 'Madras',
		(int) 30 => 'P. Rajamanickam',
		(int) 31 => 'Ganabalan',
		(int) 32 => 'Madras',
		(int) 33 => 'Madras',
		(int) 34 => 'Madras',
		(int) 35 => 'Madras',
		(int) 36 => 'B. Sriramulu',
		(int) 37 => 'K. Balakrishnan',
		(int) 38 => 'Gunabalan',
		(int) 39 => 'Madras',
		(int) 40 => 'Refiudeen',
		(int) 41 => 'Sundaram',
		(int) 42 => 'Refiudeen',
		(int) 43 => 'Madras',
		(int) 44 => 'Gunabalan',
		(int) 45 => 'I.O.',
		(int) 46 => 'Sepoy Janakaraj',
		(int) 47 => 'P. Rajamanickam',
		(int) 48 => 'Gunabalan',
		(int) 49 => 'Rajamanickam',
		(int) 50 => 'Gunabalan',
		(int) 51 => 'B. Sriramala',
		(int) 52 => 'P. Rajamanickam',
		(int) 53 => 'J.',
		(int) 54 => 'Roshan Beevi v.',
		(int) 55 => 'Tamil Nadu',
		(int) 56 => 'Cri LJ',
		(int) 57 => 'P. Rajamanickam',
		(int) 58 => 'P. Rajamanickam',
		(int) 59 => 'Sethuraman',
		(int) 60 => 'P. Rajamanickam',
		(int) 61 => 'P. Rajamanickam',
		(int) 62 => 'Madras'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '7-9-1995',
		(int) 1 => '30-8-1995',
		(int) 2 => 'a little earlier',
		(int) 3 => '1 1/2 days',
		(int) 4 => '1995',
		(int) 5 => '8-9-1995',
		(int) 6 => '11-9-1995',
		(int) 7 => 'about 32 years',
		(int) 8 => 'about 36 years',
		(int) 9 => 'about 30 years',
		(int) 10 => '11-9-1995',
		(int) 11 => 'October, 1995',
		(int) 12 => '467',
		(int) 13 => '1992',
		(int) 14 => 'the next day',
		(int) 15 => 'the next day',
		(int) 16 => '31-10-1995',
		(int) 17 => '89297',
		(int) 18 => '89298',
		(int) 19 => '1983',
		(int) 20 => '1984',
		(int) 21 => '1956CriLJ152',
		(int) 22 => '31-8-1995'
	),
	'LOC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Central Prison',
		(int) 1 => 'Central Prison',
		(int) 2 => 'Sundar',
		(int) 3 => 'the Central Prison',
		(int) 4 => 'Madras',
		(int) 5 => 'Superintendent',
		(int) 6 => 'Madras',
		(int) 7 => 'Madras',
		(int) 8 => 'the Central Prison',
		(int) 9 => 'the Central Prison',
		(int) 10 => 'Central Prison',
		(int) 11 => 'Central Prison',
		(int) 12 => 'Central Prison',
		(int) 13 => 'Madras',
		(int) 14 => 'Govt',
		(int) 15 => 'Madras'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'two',
		(int) 1 => '31-8-1995',
		(int) 2 => 'about 7-15 p.m.',
		(int) 3 => 'three',
		(int) 4 => 'one',
		(int) 5 => 'one',
		(int) 6 => 'one',
		(int) 7 => 'two',
		(int) 8 => 'three',
		(int) 9 => 'one',
		(int) 10 => 'one',
		(int) 11 => '31-8-1995',
		(int) 12 => 'two',
		(int) 13 => '30-8-1995',
		(int) 14 => '31-8-1995',
		(int) 15 => '2.',
		(int) 16 => 'three',
		(int) 17 => '7',
		(int) 18 => 'three',
		(int) 19 => '3',
		(int) 20 => 'three',
		(int) 21 => 'three',
		(int) 22 => '13',
		(int) 23 => 'three',
		(int) 24 => '30-8-1995',
		(int) 25 => 'ten',
		(int) 26 => '1',
		(int) 27 => '2',
		(int) 28 => '2',
		(int) 29 => '3',
		(int) 30 => '4',
		(int) 31 => '5',
		(int) 32 => '6',
		(int) 33 => '7',
		(int) 34 => '8',
		(int) 35 => '9',
		(int) 36 => '10',
		(int) 37 => '1',
		(int) 38 => '11/3',
		(int) 39 => '1/3',
		(int) 40 => '1/3',
		(int) 41 => '2',
		(int) 42 => '3',
		(int) 43 => '4',
		(int) 44 => '1/3',
		(int) 45 => '5',
		(int) 46 => '6',
		(int) 47 => '30-8-95',
		(int) 48 => '5',
		(int) 49 => 'two',
		(int) 50 => '6',
		(int) 51 => 'two',
		(int) 52 => '31-8-1995',
		(int) 53 => '2',
		(int) 54 => '471',
		(int) 55 => '420',
		(int) 56 => '30-8-1995',
		(int) 57 => 'three',
		(int) 58 => '30-8-1995',
		(int) 59 => 'three',
		(int) 60 => '31-8-1995',
		(int) 61 => '30-8-1985',
		(int) 62 => '8',
		(int) 63 => '30-8-1995',
		(int) 64 => '31-8-1995',
		(int) 65 => '31-8-1995',
		(int) 66 => 'three',
		(int) 67 => '30-8-1995',
		(int) 68 => '9',
		(int) 69 => 'two',
		(int) 70 => 'two',
		(int) 71 => '30-8-1995',
		(int) 72 => 'three',
		(int) 73 => 'two',
		(int) 74 => '10',
		(int) 75 => 'three',
		(int) 76 => '31-8-1995',
		(int) 77 => '11',
		(int) 78 => '18-6-1995',
		(int) 79 => '31-8-1995',
		(int) 80 => 'two',
		(int) 81 => '12',
		(int) 82 => '27-8-1995',
		(int) 83 => '37',
		(int) 84 => '31-8-1995',
		(int) 85 => 'three',
		(int) 86 => '89296 to 89398',
		(int) 87 => '13',
		(int) 88 => 'three',
		(int) 89 => '30-8-1995',
		(int) 90 => '14',
		(int) 91 => 'two',
		(int) 92 => '15',
		(int) 93 => 'three',
		(int) 94 => 'two',
		(int) 95 => '16',
		(int) 96 => '226',
		(int) 97 => '17',
		(int) 98 => 'three',
		(int) 99 => 'three',
		(int) 100 => '289',
		(int) 101 => '153',
		(int) 102 => '107',
		(int) 103 => '108',
		(int) 104 => 'three',
		(int) 105 => 'three',
		(int) 106 => '30-8-1995',
		(int) 107 => 'about 7-15 p.m.',
		(int) 108 => '31-8-1995',
		(int) 109 => 'three',
		(int) 110 => 'three',
		(int) 111 => 'two',
		(int) 112 => '30-8-1995',
		(int) 113 => 'three',
		(int) 114 => 'about 7-15 p.m.',
		(int) 115 => 'two',
		(int) 116 => 'two',
		(int) 117 => 'two',
		(int) 118 => '18',
		(int) 119 => 'two',
		(int) 120 => 'three',
		(int) 121 => '19',
		(int) 122 => 'two',
		(int) 123 => '20'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Sundar',
		(int) 1 => 'Meenakshisundaram',
		(int) 2 => 'Sundar',
		(int) 3 => 'Sundar',
		(int) 4 => 'Meenakshisundaram',
		(int) 5 => 'Rafiudeen',
		(int) 6 => 'Meenakshisundaram',
		(int) 7 => 'Rafiudeen',
		(int) 8 => 'Sethu',
		(int) 9 => 'the Full Bench',
		(int) 10 => 'Cri LJ 134',
		(int) 11 => 'Meenakshisundaram',
		(int) 12 => 'Sundar'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'R.R.',
		(int) 1 => 'E.O.I.',
		(int) 2 => 'Ibrahim',
		(int) 3 => 'Malena',
		(int) 4 => 'Counsel',
		(int) 5 => 'Balakrishnan',
		(int) 6 => 'Sethu',
		(int) 7 => 'Balakrishnan',
		(int) 8 => 'Counsel',
		(int) 9 => 'Balaksrishnan',
		(int) 10 => 'Balakrishnan',
		(int) 11 => 'Sethuraman'
	),
	'TIME' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'about 12.30 noon',
		(int) 1 => 'late in the evening',
		(int) 2 => '7-00 p.m.',
		(int) 3 => '9-9-1995',
		(int) 4 => 'the evening',
		(int) 5 => '2-00 p.m.',
		(int) 6 => '7-15 p.m.',
		(int) 7 => 'the evening',
		(int) 8 => '9-15 p.m.',
		(int) 9 => 'the afternoon',
		(int) 10 => 'twenty-four hours',
		(int) 11 => '9.15 p.m.',
		(int) 12 => 'the afternoon',
		(int) 13 => 'Several hours later',
		(int) 14 => '9-9-1995'
	),
	'FAC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Angappa Naicken Street',
		(int) 1 => 'Madras Harbour',
		(int) 2 => 'the Central Prison'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'third',
		(int) 1 => 'first',
		(int) 2 => 'third',
		(int) 3 => 'first',
		(int) 4 => '9th',
		(int) 5 => 'first',
		(int) 6 => 'first',
		(int) 7 => 'second',
		(int) 8 => 'first',
		(int) 9 => 'third',
		(int) 10 => 'first',
		(int) 11 => 'first',
		(int) 12 => 'first',
		(int) 13 => 'second',
		(int) 14 => 'second',
		(int) 15 => 'first',
		(int) 16 => 'second',
		(int) 17 => 'first',
		(int) 18 => 'first'
	),
	'EVENT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'H.C.M.P. No'
	),
	'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Superintendent of Central Prison'
	),
	'QUANTITY' => array(
		(int) 0 => '0.5 cm',
		(int) 1 => '10 cm',
		(int) 2 => '4 x 1 cm',
		(int) 3 => '10 cm',
		(int) 4 => '10 x 7 cm',
		(int) 5 => '3 x 2 cm',
		(int) 6 => '10 x 2 cm',
		(int) 7 => '10 x 1 cm',
		(int) 8 => '3 cm',
		(int) 9 => '10-9-1995'
	),
	'MONEY' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'three marks',
		(int) 1 => 'three marks'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Nathu v. State',
		(int) 1 => 'contra'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '787510',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 21, 32 and 226; <a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 120B, 420, 467 and 471',
		'appealno' => 'H.C.P. No. 1363 of 1995',
		'appellant' => 'K.M. Rafiudeen Alias Rafique',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.M. Rafiudeen Alias Rafique Vs. the Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Madras and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - habeas corpus - Article 21 of Constitution of India - petitioner sought to issue habeas corpus for production of himself and two others remanded in prison so that they could be set at liberty - further plea was for compensation award against officials of revenue intelligence - infringement of indefeasible rights of petitioner and other detenues in custody - through violence practiced by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence officials petitioner and other detenues sustained injuries - violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 - detenues can claim for compensation after disposal of criminal proceedings - criminal proceedings directed to initiated against erring officials.


 -  -  He has further made a plea for award of compensation as well for directions for initiation of appropriate legal proceedings, against erring officials of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, T. He was kept illegally in their office for 1 1/2 days and it was made to appear that the statement was voluntarily given by him on 31-8-1995. The officers took him and others to the Magistrate late in the evening after warning them that they should not complain about ill treatment, to the Magistrate, when produced before him. The officers were able to effectively prevent them from complaining to the Magistrate. The patient also complained of giddiness and pain over the left thigh, left leg and left side of abdomen. foot +Meenakshisundaram also complained to the doctor that he was assaulted by DRI men on the evening of 30-8-95 with lathies and boots. The deponent has stated, that prayers regarding initiation of appropriate legal proceedings as well award of compensation against the erring officials, will not arise. He has prayed for dismissal of the main Habeas Corpus Petition as well as the H. Petitioner has underlined in the reply affidavit, that allegations of ill-treatment by DRI officials against him and others have been proved by the wounds and injuries found and recorded by jail authorities at the time of admission in jail, as well by the reports submitted by the doctors of Government General Hospital, Madras, who had noticed multiple injuries on them. He then argued, that if the case of the petitioner were to be accepted at this stage, the entire prosecution initiated against the petitioner, the other two detenus as well as their associates, will stand adversely affected. 11. The New Remand Admission Book relates to the period commencing from 18-6-1995 and ending with 10-9-1995. We are satisfied prima facie that this Remand Admission Book has been maintained in the regular course of business. Sriramala, learned Public Prosecutor, representing the second respondent submitted, that these two registers produced by the second respondent, on our directions, clearly show, that they have been maintained in the regular course of business. At the same time, Courts, cannot close their eyes to alleged custodial violence, for it can be termed as one of the worst crimes in a civilised society governed by the rule of law. However, parties on either side affirm that the main foundation for the prosecution case, is the confession statements allegedly made by these three persons -described as voluntary by the first respondent and condemned as outcome of extortion by the petitioner and others. Rajamanickam, that the learned Magistrate would not have failed to notice the bleeding through mouth, if it had existed, on the petitioner.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Nathu v. State of Uttar Pradesh;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' M. Abdul Nazeer, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' P. Rajamanickam, Special Public Prosecutor and ;B. Srirammalu, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Chennai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1995-11-29',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Jayarama Chouta and ;T.S. Arunachalam, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. Petitioner K.M. Rafiudeen alias Rafique, sons of Kajamoideen, preferred this Habeas Corpus petition on 7-9-1995 when he was detained in Central Prison, Madras, praying for issue of a habeas for production of himself and two others, Menakshisundaram alias Sundar and Setharaman, similarly remanded and kept in Central Prison, Madras, so that they could be set at liberty. He has further made a plea for award of compensation as well for directions for initiation of appropriate legal proceedings, against erring officials of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, T. Nagar, Madras. In the affidavit sworn to by the petitioner in support of his prayer, he has stated that he was renamed to judicial custody on 31-8-1995 in R.R. No. 93/95 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.I., Egnore, Madras, at or about 7-15 p.m., along with Meenakshisundaram alias Sundar and Sethuraman. The remand report produced before the Magistrate pleading for judicial custody relies upon statements made by the three of them, which was extorted, petitioner would have it that at or about 12.30 noon on 30-8-1995, when he was proceeding to the mosque on his bike from Angappa Naicken Street, one Dorai, already known to him, enquired if he would required perfumes, torch-lights etc. Dorai was having a black colour bag and some files. On noticiting an approaching jeep, Dorai ran away leaving behind the bag. Certain officers who arrived by the jeep, rushed towards him and stopped him. They questioned him about the person who was conversing with him a little earlier. He informed them that Dorai was known to him, since he used to buy from him pant bits and shirt bits. However, he was forcibly taken to the office of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, T. Nagar, Madras. He was beaten and harassed there. He was compelled to write, that he along with his friend Sundar, arranged to export snake skins for one Majid Bai alias Srinivasan, when he informed the authorities that he had no connection whatever with snake-skins, they removed his clothes and beat him with lathies, rulers, hands and legs mercilessly and tortured him, which he was not able to withstand. He was further compelled to write that one Sethuraman also accompanied him to a place near Ramachandra Medical College, Porar and that he had transferred the container in a lorry, which was intercepted by DRI Officers at Madras Harbour. They further pressurised him to write that he knew the persons found in two or three photographs, which were in the possession of these officers. When he refused to accede, he was battered by a batch of DRI officers. After giving further details about the manner of compelling to write more material, the deponent has stated that the officers had also brought Sundar, Sethuraman, Ibrahim and another, to their office and manhandled them with hands, legs, lathies and rulers. Each one of them was kept in a separate room and thereafter the officers of DRI closed the doors and windows, since they were crying, unable to tolerate indiscriminate beating. Petitioner has further specifically stated that one officer hit him on his mouth with his fist resulting in oozing of blood. He was not given any food or permitted to contact any of his friends or family members. Ultimately, he had no option except submitting to the will of the officers and write down according to their dictation, incriminating himself and others. He has certainly stated that his statement was not voluntary, but was the outcome of extortion arising out of physical third degree violence, on his body. He was kept illegally in their office for 1 1/2 days and it was made to appear that the statement was voluntarily given by him on 31-8-1995. The officers took him and others to the Magistrate late in the evening after warning them that they should not complain about ill treatment, to the Magistrate, when produced before him. If they chose to make any such complaint, they would not only object to releasing them on bail, but also would put them behind the bars under COFEPOSA ACT. All of them were produced before the learned Magistrate at his residence. He and other two detenus were unable even to climb the staircase and the officers encircled them to prevent others watching their movements and suffering. The officers were able to effectively prevent them from complaining to the Magistrate. From the house of the Magistrate, they were escorted to the jail. At the Central Prison, Madras, injuries found on them were recorded, at the time of their admission therein. They were treated in the jail hospital. According to the petitioner, such highhanded 'inhuman act', indulged in by the officers of the first respondent was violative of Article 21 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> since law never sanctions either physical violence or extortion of statements by using third degree illegal methods. He has then averred that wounds and injuries on his body were still visible, which would establish that he was beaten by the officers of DRI when he was kept in their illegal custody from 30-8-1995 till 7-00 p.m. on 31-8-1995. He has plead for production of himself and others before this Court, since the injuries were still visible on them, so that the Court could scrutinise the harm meted out to them. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. While entertaining the instant Habeas Corpus Petition, along with H.C.M.P. No. 84 of 1995 preferred for issue of directions to jail authorities to produce all the three of them immediately before this Court for recording of wounds and injuries on their bodies and for directions for immediate medical examination, pending disposal of the main Habeas Corpus Petition, this Court, on 7-9-1995, held that it would be desirable to ascertain the nature of injuries inflicted on the detenus and the treatment given to them for the said purpose. This Court directed that Superintendent of Central Prison, Madras, to produce the three detenus before the Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Madras, on 8-9-1995 for medical examination and for filing of a report with regard to such examination. This Habeas Corpus Petition and the H.C.M.P. was directed to be called again on 11-9-1995. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Some time later, the Superintendent, Central Prison, Madras, forwarded to the registry of this Court, three medical reports issued by the Dean, Government General Hospital, Madras, in respect of the three detenus. This communication was received by the Registry on 13-9-1995. The report of the Dean, Government General Hospital, in respect of the three detenus, shows that Sethuraman, aged about 32 years, Refiudeen, aged about 36 years, and Meenakshisundaram, aged about 30 years, were admitted as in patients in Government General Hospital, Madras, on 9-9-1995 and discharged on 11-9-1995. The doctor who examined Rafiudeen has mentioned in the discharge summary that the victim had told him that he was assaulted by the DRI officials with lathies and shoes on 30-8-1995 at T. Nagar. The history also shows complaint of bleeding from the mouth and of vomititng. The patient also complained of giddiness and pain over the left thigh, left leg and left side of abdomen. The medical officer noticed the following ten injuries of Rafiudeen : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Abrasion - Mucoosa of upper lip. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. Brown coloured contusion Rt. Shoulder (2 x 0.5 cm.) </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. 10 cm. size healed wound - Lt. scapular region. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. Cane mark (4 x 1 cm.) mid-arm left. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Cane mark (reddish brown) 10 cm. over left iliac fossa. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Contusion left thigh - Reddish brown (10 x 7 cm.) - Tender on palpation. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Contusion - lateral to knee joint (3 x 2 cm.) </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Tenderness - left medical malleolus. No deformity. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. Contusion (cane mark) over posterolateral part of right thigh (10 x 2 cm.). </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. Reddish brown (came mark) over medial aspect of left thigh near the knee joint (10 x 1 cm.) X-Ray did not reveal fracture on the right ankle and feet. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On detenu Meenakshisundaram, the same medical officer found the following injuries : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Cane marks on the skin over Rt. shoulder, upper 11/3, lower 1/3, middle 1/3 of the Rt. arm. Superficial contusion. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. Tenderness - Lateral epicondy Lt. elbow. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. Cane marks over the medial aspect of left thigh (superficial) contusion) and Rt. upper arm (reddish brown colour). </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. A 3 cm. abrasion over the medial aspect of lower 1/3 of left thigh-healed (reddish brown scab). </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Tenderness medial malleolus of left leg. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Tenderness - Sole of Rt. foot +. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Meenakshisundaram also complained to the doctor that he was assaulted by DRI men on the evening of 30-8-95 with lathies and boots. He had no history of vomiting, hematosis and Malena, loss of consciousness and ENT bleeding. X-Ray of neck, right foot and ankle did not reveal any fracture. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Detenu Sethuraman was also examined by another doctor and he had the same complaint to make as the other two detenus. Medical Officer found reddish brown cane marks over the left shin of Sethuraman, and three marks over the left wrist and hand. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Copies of the Medical report were furnished to the petitioner and the respondents. A detailed counter-affidavit has been sworn to on behalf of the first respondent by C. Rajendran, Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, T. Nagar, Madras-17. This counter-affidavit was sworn to on 9th October, 1995, apparently after receiving copies of the medical report. The deponent has claimed that the petitioner and two others were arrested on 31-8-1995 and yet another person was arrested on 2-9-1995. The circumstances under which such arrests had taken place have been detailed in the counter-affidavit, about which we are not concerned in this Habeas Corpus petition. It is the case of the respondents that these detenus have committed offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 467, 471 and 420, I.P.C. apart from commission of offences under Section 135 of the Customs Act read with Section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. He has further stated, that Meenakshisundaram and Sethuraman was apprehended on 30-8-1995 and they had given voluntary statements admitting their roles in the crime. There is no dispute, in the counter-affidavit, that these three persons were apprehended on 30-8-1995 and enquired, though the arrest was on the next day at 2-00 p.m. The counter-affidavit also admits that all the three detenu were produced before the Magistrate at 7-15 p.m. on 31-8-1995. It has been specifically pointed out in the counter-affidavit that before the Magistrate, none of the detenus had whispered about any ill-treatment or assault by any officer of the DRI or injuries having been sustained by them or even about any statements having been extorted from them, as now alleged. The deponent has further averred in his counter-affidavit, that if the averments made by the petitioner now, were true, he would have definitely alleged before the remanding Magistrate that he was assaulted by DRI officers and he was forced to write a statement and would have also shown the injuries on his person to the Magistrate. This piece of conduct itself, according to the depondent, was enough to establish that the allegations now trotted out in the affidavit of the petitioners, were totally false and have been coined to make out a case before this Court in order to create a defence and intimidate the officers concerned in the detection of this offence. The counter-affidavit denies that the detenus were compelled to write down the statements, in spite of their involvement in the impugned crime. The allegations made by the petitioner that the detenus were kept in separate rooms and they were manhandled with hands, legs and rulers, after closing the doors and windows, since they were crying, have been denied. In short, every allegation made in petitioner's affidavit, has been denied in the counter-affidavit. The first respondent has also stated, that the petitioner had given out his first statement on 30-8-1985 itself and the second statement was written by him on the next day, after seizure was effected. He has denied, about DRI officials having coerced the detenus from complaining to the Magistrate by threatening them with detention under the COFEPOSA Act, or opposition to bail, in the event of disclosure. The deponent would have it that if the detenus had suffered such serious injuries as alleged, it would not have escaped the notice of the Magistrate. The counter-affidavit further adds that for the injuries said to have been recorded by the jail authorities, namely, bruises, contusions, etc., at the time of remand, the officials of the DRI cannot be held responsible for the reasons set out earlier. The officers of the Department were not concerned with the alleged ill-treatment or alleged injuries, for which Departmental officers were not responsible. The first respondent has reiterated in the counter-affidavit that no illegal act was committed. The deponent has stated, that prayers regarding initiation of appropriate legal proceedings as well award of compensation against the erring officials, will not arise. He has prayed for dismissal of the main Habeas Corpus Petition as well as the H.C.M.P. as unsustainable on facts and law. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Petitioner has sworn to reply affidavit on 31-10-1995, wherein he has reiterated his definite case. He has then stated that the medical reports now available would suffice to prove, that false and involuntary statements stood recorded from him and other detenus by use of third decree methods. According to him, the first respondent cannot take a stand that they had not complained to the Magistrate about ill-treatment after having effectively prevented them from making any such complaint. He has affirmed that DRI officials were responsible for the injuries found on their bodies, proved by the jail admission records and medical reports. Petitioner has underlined in the reply affidavit, that allegations of ill-treatment by DRI officials against him and others have been proved by the wounds and injuries found and recorded by jail authorities at the time of admission in jail, as well by the reports submitted by the doctors of Government General Hospital, Madras, who had noticed multiple injuries on them. Award of compensation and initiation of appropriate action against erring officials have again been reiterated in the counter-affidavit. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. M. Abdul Nazeer, petitioner's learned Counsel, graphically described before us the case of the petitioner narrated in his affidavit and reply affidavit and emphasised that the detenus, inclusive of the petitioner, who were apprehend on 30-8-1995, and allegedly arrested on 31-8-1995, were wholly in the custody of the DRI officials till they were handed over to prison authorities after obtaining remand from the concerned Magistrate on the evening of 31-8-1995. He pointed out that the petitioner and other detenus had apparently sustained injuries found on them when they were in the custody of DRI officials, for, in the Central Prison, Madras, when they were examined physically, injuries were noticed on all of them, which were entered in the jail registers, before they were sent for treatment to the prison doctor. He pointed out, that custody of all the three of them by DRI officials from 30-8-1995 till handing over to prison authorities, stands admitted and if that be so, the DRI officials were bound to account for the injuries found on them. Of course, he attacked the confession statements as being the outcome of torture and coercion. He contended that every one of the prayers made by the petitioner, deserved to be upheld. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Mr. P. Rajamanickam, learned Counsel representing the first respondent referred to several paragraphs of the counter-affidavit and submitted, that the whole claim of the petitioner that he and two other were injured while in custody, must be held to be false, since the telling circumstance of bleeding through mouth by the petitioner could not have escaped the attention of the learned Magistrate when they were produced for remand before him. He submitted that the petitioner and two others, in conjunction with others, have committed very serious offences and with a view to escape from the clutches of law, they have trotted out a case of torture, so that it could be used as the main plank of defence at a later stage. However, when questioned by the Court, he admitted that commencing from the time of apprehension on 30-8-1995, till they were produced before the prison authorities, all the three of them were in the custody of the DRI officials. He added that DRI officials Ganabalan and Balakrishnan were the persons who escorted the petitioner and the other detenus to the learned Magistrate and later to the jail premises. He submitted that the DRI officials have already taken expert medical opinion and they will be able to disprove, at the appropriate time, that these persons could not have sustained the injuries noticed by prison authorities and the Medical Officers at Government General Hospital, Madras, at the time and in the manner alleged. He then argued, that if the case of the petitioner were to be accepted at this stage, the entire prosecution initiated against the petitioner, the other two detenus as well as their associates, will stand adversely affected. He did urge, that the confessions recorded from these persons, would, of course, be the main plank of the prosecution. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Since the petitioner has made specific allegations in his affidavit that the jail authorities had noticed injuries on all the three of them, soon after production at the Central Prison, Madras, we deemed it necessary to call for the remand admission book relating to 31-8-1995 from Central Prison, Madras. We also directed production of the admission book at Central Prison, Madras, relating to the date, with which we are now concerned. Mr. B. Sriramulu, learned Public Prosecutor, obtained the same from the prison authorities and placed them for our scrutiny. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The New Remand Admission Book relates to the period commencing from 18-6-1995 and ending with 10-9-1995. We are satisfied prima facie that this Remand Admission Book has been maintained in the regular course of business. This admission book shows that no production by K. Balakrishnan and Gunabalan, I.O., DRI, Madras, Refiudeen (89296) was received at the Central Prison on 31-8-1995. At that point of time, a contusion on the upper lip of Rafiudeen was noticed. He has also swelling due to beating on his left hand and right shoulder. Meenakshisundaram alias Sundaram, who was received in prison along with Refiudeen had swelling due to beating on his left shoulder and he had similar swellings on his feet. His serial number is 89297. Sethuraman alias Sethu was also received in prison along with the other two, on production by the officials mentioned earlier and his serial number is 89298. No mention has been made in this admission book of any injuries noticed on Sethuraman alias Sethu. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The Admission Book commencing from 27-8-1995, at page 37 shows that at 9-15 p.m. on 31-8-1995, on the orders from the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Madras, through DRI, T. Nagar, Gunabalan and Balakrishnan, I.O. and Sepoy Janakaraj, these three persons serially number as 89296 to 89398 were admitted in Central Prison, Madras. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Mr. P. Rajamanickam, first respondent's learned Counsel, requested our permission to peruse the prison registers and we acceded to his request. After perusing the registers, he commented that the signatures of Gunabalan and Balaksrishnan have not been obtained in the registers. When we questioned Mr. Rajamanickam as to why he was pointing out non-obtaining of signatures, he contended that in certain cases, signatures, have been obtained from those who had produced the remand prisoners and the same was conspicuously absent in this instance. However, he did not dispute that Gunabalan and Balakrishnan, officials of DRI, had produced these three persons before the prison authorities, after continuous custody with them from the afternoon of 30-8-1995. He pleaded for dismissal of this Habeas Corpus Petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Mr. B. Sriramala, learned Public Prosecutor, representing the second respondent submitted, that these two registers produced by the second respondent, on our directions, clearly show, that they have been maintained in the regular course of business. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. We have narrated all the facts brought to our notice by counsel, three in number. Of course, as rightly contended by Mr. P. Rajamanickam, after respondent's learned Counsel, the offences alleged against the petitioner and two other detenus, are of a serious nature and the prosecution against them will have to be allowed to reach its logical termination. At the same time, Courts, cannot close their eyes to alleged custodial violence, for it can be termed as one of the worst crimes in a civilised society governed by the rule of law. Quite often, the Supreme Court has observed that convicts, prisoners or undertrials are not denuded of their fundamental rights under Article 21 and it is only such restrictions, as are permitted by law, which can be imposed on the enjoyment of the fundamental right by such persons. It is an obligation of the State of ensure that there is no infringement of the indefeasible rights of a citizen of life, except in accordance with proceeding established by law, while the citizen is in its custody, whether he be a suspect undertrial or convict. The duty of care on the part of the State is strict and admits of no exception. The wrongdoer is accountable and the State is responsible if the person in custody of the police stood deprived of his life, except according to the procedure established by law. Again, the Supreme Court has consistently held that while granting relief to a victim for infraction and invasion of his rights guaranteed under Article 21, it is not always enough to relegate him to the ordinary remedy of a civil suit to claim damages for the tortious act of the State, as that remedy in private law indeed is available to the aggrieved party. The Courts have the obligation to satisfy the social aspirations of the citizens, because the Courts and the law are for the people and expected to respond to their aspirations. The primary source of the public law proceedings stems from the prerogative writs and the Courts have therefore, to evolve 'new tools' to give relief in public law by moulding it according to the situation with a view to preserve and protect the rule of law. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. It is also evident from the pronouncements of the Supreme Court that the Supreme Court and the High Courts, being the protectors of the civil liberties of the citizen, have not only the power and jurisdiction, but also an obligation to grant relief in exercising of their jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 to a victim, whose fundamental rights under Article 21 are established to have been flagrantly infringed by calling upon the State to repair the damage done by its officers to the fundamental rights of the citizen, notwithstanding the right of the citizen to the remedy, by way of a civil suit or criminal proceedings. The State of course, has the right to be indemnified, by taking such action as may be available to it, against a wrongdoer in accordance with law through appropriate proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. A variety of decided cases have been placed before us, wherein either the Supreme Court or the High Courts have awarded compensation for custodial deaths or violence inflicted on victims, while they were in custody. But, almost in all such cases, the prosecution initiated by the State against those in custody had either abated or stood terminated, while, of course, the prosecution against those erring officials who were responsible for infliction of violence on persons while in their custody, were either pending or had a base of report submitted on enquiry, or were directed to be instituted after investigation. Here is a case where serious offences, which would affect the economy of the country, are alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and other detenus and their associates. Of course, these three detenus have enough opportunity to defend themselves and put forth their innocence before the trial Court. Equally, it will be possible for the prosecuting agency, on the basis of the evidence to be placed before the trial Court, to demand a conviction. That exercise is always open to both parties and that may not have to detain as generally in Habeas Corpus Petitions of this nature. However, parties on either side affirm that the main foundation for the prosecution case, is the confession statements allegedly made by these three persons - described as voluntary by the first respondent and condemned as outcome of extortion by the petitioner and others. If such confessions were voluntary or otherwise, may have again to attract the attention of the learned trial Judge. It will be relevant at this stage to refer to the observations of Ratnavel Pandian, J., as he then was, speaking on behalf of the Full Bench, in Roshan Beevi v. Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Public Dept., 1983 Mad LW (Cri) 289 : 1984 Cri LJ 134). The observations read as hereunder (at p. 153 of Cri LJ) : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'If, in a given case, the Customs Officials detains any person required or summoned under the provisions of the Customs Act for a prolonged period, even exceeding twenty-four hours, or keeps him in closed doors and a captive prisoner surrounded by officials or locks him in a room or confines him to an office premises, he does so at his peril, because Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act do not authorise the Officer belonging to the Customs Department to detain a person for a prolonged custody and deprive him of the elementary facilities and privileges to which he is entitled. In such a situation, the officer must be held to have over-stepped his limits, and any confessional statement obtained from such a person by keeping him a prolonged custody has to be regard with grave suspicion, because there is always room for criticism that such a confession might have been obtained from extorted mal-treatment or induced by improper means. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Nathu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, : 1956CriLJ152 , the prolonged custody may stamp the confessional statement so obtained as involuntary one, and the intrinsic value of such a statement may be vitiated.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is thus evident that the question whether a person stood kept in prolonged custody, or he was inflicted with violence while in such custody, are questions of fact, which have to be carefully considered as against the background of circumstances, disclosed in each case. Naturally, no inflexible standards for universal guidance could be laid down. Since the confession statements of those three persons will be the basic material before the trial Court, on which either party would depend, to secure advantage in their favour, we are of the opinion that at this stage it will not be prudent for us, to offer a definite opinion as to the right of the petitioner and other detenus to claim compensation by invoking our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, irrespective of the rights available to them in the normal civil forum. At the same time, we are bound to mention that, on the basis of submission made by either party, prima facie, it is evident that these three persons who were apprehended on 30-8-1995 were continuously in the custody of DRI officials, till they were handed over at 9.15 p.m. to the prison authorities on the basis of an order of remand passed by the concerned Magistrate at or about 7-15 p.m. on 31-8-1995, when they were produced for remand. If injuries were found on these three persons, soon after handing over of custody by DRI officials to prison authorities, needless to state, that the DRI officials must be held responsible to account for these injuries. It is all the more relevant in this case, since admittedly the DRI officials were holding these three persons in their custody throughout. In fairness, Mr. P. Rajamanickam must have placed before us the contra expert medical opinion allegedly obtained by the DRI officials, to disprove that the petitioner and the other two detenus, could not have sustained injuries found on them in the manner alleged by them. We are totally unimpressed, with the submission made by Mr. P. Rajamanickam, that the learned Magistrate would not have failed to notice the bleeding through mouth, if it had existed, on the petitioner. We cannot overlook the specific case of the petitioner in his affidavit that he was beaten from 30-8-1995 and the statement recorded from him was on the afternoon of 31-8-1995. It is also the specific case of the petitioner that on fisting on his mouth by an officer, blood started oozing. Several hours later, petitioner was produced before the Magistrate and in that backdrop, it will be odd to expect continuous oozing of blood, to be markedly apparent for visualisation by the Magistrate. Irrespective of the truth or otherwise of the case of the petitioner, which will have to be tested, we cannot ignore his case, at this stage, that all the three of them were surrounded by DRI officials when they were taken to the residence of the Magistrate at or about 7-15 p.m. for the purpose of obtaining remand. The situation in which these persons were produced before the Magistrate, cannot be one beyond our comprehension. We must also state that the records produced by the jail authorities, on our summoning them, prima facie show that except Sethuraman, the other two detenus had visible injuries on them, when they were produced inside the jail campus by the DRI officials. We have perused the two books produced by the second respondent and prima facie it appears that they have been maintained in the regular course of business. The entries in the New Remand Admission Book, coupled with the medical reports furnished to us, by the Dean, Government General Hospital, Madras, show that petitioner and Meenakshisundaram alias Sundar had sustained multiple injuries in different parts of their bodies and cane marks were also visible. The Medical Officer further found reddish brown cane mark over the left shin and three marks over the left hand of Sethuraman, who was examined on 9-9-1995. As to what would be the effect of these injuries noticed on Sethuraman, vis-a-vis non-entry of these injuries in the New Remand Admission Book on 31-8-1995, may have to attract the attention of the trial Magistrate, during the process, of the trial proceedings. It will be neither fair, nor just to accede at this stage to the argument of Mr. P. Rajamanickam that Sethuraman must be held to have not sustained injuries while in custody of the DRI officials. If that emphatic stand of Mr. P. Rajamanickam has to be accepted, equally, we have to accept that the other two persons had sustained injuries only because of violence practised on them by the DRI officials. As we have already stated on the peculiar nature of the case placed before us, we are rather inclined to keep this question of compensation open without offering definite findings, for in our opinion, such a procedure would tend, for the furtherance of the case of justice. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. While the issue of compensation can be kept open, to be decided at a later stage and leaving such right open to be invoked by the petitioner and the other two detenus, under Article 226 of the Constitution, at the appropriate time, we have to still decide the effect of the other prayer made by the petitioner seeking, directions for initiation of appropriate legal proceedings against erring officials of the first respondent. We have already expressed court view that prima facie it appears that the DRI officials may have to explain the injuries found on these three persons, since it is admitted that they were in the custody of the DRI officials throughout. Naturally, as a follow-up, to this view of ours, we have to necessarily direct the Commissioner of Police, Madras, to cause registration of crime against the erring DRI officials on the basis of the affidavit of the petitioner and the records referred to by as (Jail records and medical reports) and have it investigated, leading necessarily to filing of a final report in accordance with law. This exercise, the Commissioner of Police, shall do without any delay. In the event of a positive final report being filed, it will be open to both parties to plead for joint trial of the prosecution initiated by the first respondent against the petitioner and the other detenus and the prosecution against the DRI officials at the instance of the State. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. We reiterate that the claim for compensation made by the petitioner and two others in this Habeas Corpus Petition, has not been rejected or foreclosed for the right to seek this remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution stands kept open by us, if the petitioner and the other detenus so choose to invoke our said jurisdiction at the appropriate time, after disposal of the criminal proceedings. This Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of accordingly. This criminal proceedings shall be proceeded with and terminated, without being influenced by any of the observations made herein. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Order accordingly.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1996CriLJ2938',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Madras and Others',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '787510'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]
Code Context
//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'K.M. Rafiudeen Alias Rafique Vs. the Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Madras and Others Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Article 21 of the Constitution of India',
			(int) 1 => 'Section 135',
			(int) 2 => 'the Customs Act',
			(int) 3 => 'Section 3',
			(int) 4 => 'the COFEPOSA Act',
			(int) 5 => 'the Medical Officers at',
			(int) 6 => 'Article 21',
			(int) 7 => 'Article 21',
			(int) 8 => 'Article 21',
			(int) 9 => 'the Customs Act',
			(int) 10 => 'the Customs Act',
			(int) 11 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution',
			(int) 12 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution',
			(int) 13 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Rafique',
			(int) 1 => 'Kajamoideen',
			(int) 2 => 'the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence',
			(int) 3 => 'the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate',
			(int) 4 => 'Sethuraman',
			(int) 5 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 6 => 'Dorai',
			(int) 7 => 'the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence',
			(int) 8 => 'Srinivasan',
			(int) 9 => 'Sethuraman',
			(int) 10 => 'Ramachandra Medical College',
			(int) 11 => 'Porar',
			(int) 12 => 'DRI Officers',
			(int) 13 => 'DRI',
			(int) 14 => 'Sethuraman',
			(int) 15 => 'DRI',
			(int) 16 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 17 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 18 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 19 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 20 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 21 => 'DRI',
			(int) 22 => 'Court',
			(int) 23 => 'Court',
			(int) 24 => 'Habeas Corpus Petition',
			(int) 25 => 'Court',
			(int) 26 => 'Habeas Corpus Petition',
			(int) 27 => 'Court',
			(int) 28 => 'This Habeas Corpus Petition',
			(int) 29 => 'Court',
			(int) 30 => 'the Dean, Government General Hospital',
			(int) 31 => 'Registry',
			(int) 32 => 'the Dean, Government General Hospital',
			(int) 33 => 'Sethuraman',
			(int) 34 => 'Government General Hospital',
			(int) 35 => 'DRI',
			(int) 36 => 'T. Nagar',
			(int) 37 => 'Abrasion - Mucoosa',
			(int) 38 => 'Cane',
			(int) 39 => 'Cane',
			(int) 40 => 'DRI',
			(int) 41 => 'ENT',
			(int) 42 => 'Sethuraman',
			(int) 43 => 'Directorate of Revenue Intelligence',
			(int) 44 => 'the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation',
			(int) 45 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 46 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 47 => 'DRI',
			(int) 48 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 49 => 'DRI',
			(int) 50 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 51 => 'Court',
			(int) 52 => 'DRI',
			(int) 53 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 54 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 55 => 'DRI',
			(int) 56 => 'Department',
			(int) 57 => 'Departmental',
			(int) 58 => 'Habeas Corpus Petition',
			(int) 59 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 60 => 'DRI',
			(int) 61 => 'DRI',
			(int) 62 => 'Government General Hospital',
			(int) 63 => 'DRI',
			(int) 64 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 65 => 'DRI',
			(int) 66 => 'DRI',
			(int) 67 => 'DRI',
			(int) 68 => 'Counsel',
			(int) 69 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 70 => 'Court',
			(int) 71 => 'DRI',
			(int) 72 => 'DRI',
			(int) 73 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 74 => 'DRI',
			(int) 75 => 'Government General Hospital',
			(int) 76 => 'Public Prosecutor',
			(int) 77 => 'The New Remand Admission Book',
			(int) 78 => 'this Remand Admission Book',
			(int) 79 => 'I.O.',
			(int) 80 => 'DRI',
			(int) 81 => 'Sethuraman',
			(int) 82 => 'Sethuraman',
			(int) 83 => 'the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's',
			(int) 84 => 'DRI',
			(int) 85 => 'T. Nagar',
			(int) 86 => 'DRI',
			(int) 87 => 'Public Prosecutor',
			(int) 88 => 'Counsel',
			(int) 89 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 90 => 'State',
			(int) 91 => 'State',
			(int) 92 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 93 => 'State',
			(int) 94 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 95 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 96 => 'the High Courts',
			(int) 97 => 'State',
			(int) 98 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 99 => 'the High Courts',
			(int) 100 => 'State',
			(int) 101 => 'Court',
			(int) 102 => 'Court',
			(int) 103 => 'Habeas Corpus Petitions',
			(int) 104 => 'Ratnavel Pandian',
			(int) 105 => 'Customs',
			(int) 106 => 'the Customs Department',
			(int) 107 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 108 => 'Uttar Pradesh',
			(int) 109 => 'Court',
			(int) 110 => 'DRI',
			(int) 111 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 112 => 'DRI',
			(int) 113 => 'DRI',
			(int) 114 => 'DRI',
			(int) 115 => 'DRI',
			(int) 116 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 117 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 118 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 119 => 'DRI',
			(int) 120 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 121 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 122 => 'DRI',
			(int) 123 => 'the New Remand Admission Book',
			(int) 124 => 'the Dean, Government General Hospital',
			(int) 125 => 'Sethuraman',
			(int) 126 => 'the New Remand Admission Book',
			(int) 127 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 128 => 'Sethuraman',
			(int) 129 => 'DRI',
			(int) 130 => 'DRI',
			(int) 131 => 'DRI',
			(int) 132 => 'DRI',
			(int) 133 => 'DRI',
			(int) 134 => 'the Commissioner of Police',
			(int) 135 => 'DRI',
			(int) 136 => 'State',
			(int) 137 => 'This Habeas Corpus Petition'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Habeas Corpus',
			(int) 1 => 'Madras',
			(int) 2 => 'Menakshisundaram',
			(int) 3 => 'Setharaman',
			(int) 4 => 'Madras',
			(int) 5 => 'T. Nagar',
			(int) 6 => 'Madras',
			(int) 7 => 'Egnore',
			(int) 8 => 'Madras',
			(int) 9 => 'Dorai',
			(int) 10 => 'Dorai',
			(int) 11 => 'T. Nagar',
			(int) 12 => 'Madras',
			(int) 13 => 'Majid Bai',
			(int) 14 => 'Madras',
			(int) 15 => 'Madras',
			(int) 16 => 'Madras',
			(int) 17 => 'Refiudeen',
			(int) 18 => 'X-Ray',
			(int) 19 => 'Meenakshisundaram',
			(int) 20 => 'elbow',
			(int) 21 => 'X-Ray',
			(int) 22 => 'Detenu Sethuraman',
			(int) 23 => 'C. Rajendran',
			(int) 24 => 'T. Nagar',
			(int) 25 => 'Habeas Corpus',
			(int) 26 => 'Sethuraman',
			(int) 27 => 'Madras',
			(int) 28 => 'M. Abdul Nazeer',
			(int) 29 => 'Madras',
			(int) 30 => 'P. Rajamanickam',
			(int) 31 => 'Ganabalan',
			(int) 32 => 'Madras',
			(int) 33 => 'Madras',
			(int) 34 => 'Madras',
			(int) 35 => 'Madras',
			(int) 36 => 'B. Sriramulu',
			(int) 37 => 'K. Balakrishnan',
			(int) 38 => 'Gunabalan',
			(int) 39 => 'Madras',
			(int) 40 => 'Refiudeen',
			(int) 41 => 'Sundaram',
			(int) 42 => 'Refiudeen',
			(int) 43 => 'Madras',
			(int) 44 => 'Gunabalan',
			(int) 45 => 'I.O.',
			(int) 46 => 'Sepoy Janakaraj',
			(int) 47 => 'P. Rajamanickam',
			(int) 48 => 'Gunabalan',
			(int) 49 => 'Rajamanickam',
			(int) 50 => 'Gunabalan',
			(int) 51 => 'B. Sriramala',
			(int) 52 => 'P. Rajamanickam',
			(int) 53 => 'J.',
			(int) 54 => 'Roshan Beevi v.',
			(int) 55 => 'Tamil Nadu',
			(int) 56 => 'Cri LJ',
			(int) 57 => 'P. Rajamanickam',
			(int) 58 => 'P. Rajamanickam',
			(int) 59 => 'Sethuraman',
			(int) 60 => 'P. Rajamanickam',
			(int) 61 => 'P. Rajamanickam',
			(int) 62 => 'Madras'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '7-9-1995',
			(int) 1 => '30-8-1995',
			(int) 2 => 'a little earlier',
			(int) 3 => '1 1/2 days',
			(int) 4 => '1995',
			(int) 5 => '8-9-1995',
			(int) 6 => '11-9-1995',
			(int) 7 => 'about 32 years',
			(int) 8 => 'about 36 years',
			(int) 9 => 'about 30 years',
			(int) 10 => '11-9-1995',
			(int) 11 => 'October, 1995',
			(int) 12 => '467',
			(int) 13 => '1992',
			(int) 14 => 'the next day',
			(int) 15 => 'the next day',
			(int) 16 => '31-10-1995',
			(int) 17 => '89297',
			(int) 18 => '89298',
			(int) 19 => '1983',
			(int) 20 => '1984',
			(int) 21 => '1956CriLJ152',
			(int) 22 => '31-8-1995'
		),
		'LOC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Central Prison',
			(int) 1 => 'Central Prison',
			(int) 2 => 'Sundar',
			(int) 3 => 'the Central Prison',
			(int) 4 => 'Madras',
			(int) 5 => 'Superintendent',
			(int) 6 => 'Madras',
			(int) 7 => 'Madras',
			(int) 8 => 'the Central Prison',
			(int) 9 => 'the Central Prison',
			(int) 10 => 'Central Prison',
			(int) 11 => 'Central Prison',
			(int) 12 => 'Central Prison',
			(int) 13 => 'Madras',
			(int) 14 => 'Govt',
			(int) 15 => 'Madras'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'two',
			(int) 1 => '31-8-1995',
			(int) 2 => 'about 7-15 p.m.',
			(int) 3 => 'three',
			(int) 4 => 'one',
			(int) 5 => 'one',
			(int) 6 => 'one',
			(int) 7 => 'two',
			(int) 8 => 'three',
			(int) 9 => 'one',
			(int) 10 => 'one',
			(int) 11 => '31-8-1995',
			(int) 12 => 'two',
			(int) 13 => '30-8-1995',
			(int) 14 => '31-8-1995',
			(int) 15 => '2.',
			(int) 16 => 'three',
			(int) 17 => '7',
			(int) 18 => 'three',
			(int) 19 => '3',
			(int) 20 => 'three',
			(int) 21 => 'three',
			(int) 22 => '13',
			(int) 23 => 'three',
			(int) 24 => '30-8-1995',
			(int) 25 => 'ten',
			(int) 26 => '1',
			(int) 27 => '2',
			(int) 28 => '2',
			(int) 29 => '3',
			(int) 30 => '4',
			(int) 31 => '5',
			(int) 32 => '6',
			(int) 33 => '7',
			(int) 34 => '8',
			(int) 35 => '9',
			(int) 36 => '10',
			(int) 37 => '1',
			(int) 38 => '11/3',
			(int) 39 => '1/3',
			(int) 40 => '1/3',
			(int) 41 => '2',
			(int) 42 => '3',
			(int) 43 => '4',
			(int) 44 => '1/3',
			(int) 45 => '5',
			(int) 46 => '6',
			(int) 47 => '30-8-95',
			(int) 48 => '5',
			(int) 49 => 'two',
			(int) 50 => '6',
			(int) 51 => 'two',
			(int) 52 => '31-8-1995',
			(int) 53 => '2',
			(int) 54 => '471',
			(int) 55 => '420',
			(int) 56 => '30-8-1995',
			(int) 57 => 'three',
			(int) 58 => '30-8-1995',
			(int) 59 => 'three',
			(int) 60 => '31-8-1995',
			(int) 61 => '30-8-1985',
			(int) 62 => '8',
			(int) 63 => '30-8-1995',
			(int) 64 => '31-8-1995',
			(int) 65 => '31-8-1995',
			(int) 66 => 'three',
			(int) 67 => '30-8-1995',
			(int) 68 => '9',
			(int) 69 => 'two',
			(int) 70 => 'two',
			(int) 71 => '30-8-1995',
			(int) 72 => 'three',
			(int) 73 => 'two',
			(int) 74 => '10',
			(int) 75 => 'three',
			(int) 76 => '31-8-1995',
			(int) 77 => '11',
			(int) 78 => '18-6-1995',
			(int) 79 => '31-8-1995',
			(int) 80 => 'two',
			(int) 81 => '12',
			(int) 82 => '27-8-1995',
			(int) 83 => '37',
			(int) 84 => '31-8-1995',
			(int) 85 => 'three',
			(int) 86 => '89296 to 89398',
			(int) 87 => '13',
			(int) 88 => 'three',
			(int) 89 => '30-8-1995',
			(int) 90 => '14',
			(int) 91 => 'two',
			(int) 92 => '15',
			(int) 93 => 'three',
			(int) 94 => 'two',
			(int) 95 => '16',
			(int) 96 => '226',
			(int) 97 => '17',
			(int) 98 => 'three',
			(int) 99 => 'three',
			(int) 100 => '289',
			(int) 101 => '153',
			(int) 102 => '107',
			(int) 103 => '108',
			(int) 104 => 'three',
			(int) 105 => 'three',
			(int) 106 => '30-8-1995',
			(int) 107 => 'about 7-15 p.m.',
			(int) 108 => '31-8-1995',
			(int) 109 => 'three',
			(int) 110 => 'three',
			(int) 111 => 'two',
			(int) 112 => '30-8-1995',
			(int) 113 => 'three',
			(int) 114 => 'about 7-15 p.m.',
			(int) 115 => 'two',
			(int) 116 => 'two',
			(int) 117 => 'two',
			(int) 118 => '18',
			(int) 119 => 'two',
			(int) 120 => 'three',
			(int) 121 => '19',
			(int) 122 => 'two',
			(int) 123 => '20'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Sundar',
			(int) 1 => 'Meenakshisundaram',
			(int) 2 => 'Sundar',
			(int) 3 => 'Sundar',
			(int) 4 => 'Meenakshisundaram',
			(int) 5 => 'Rafiudeen',
			(int) 6 => 'Meenakshisundaram',
			(int) 7 => 'Rafiudeen',
			(int) 8 => 'Sethu',
			(int) 9 => 'the Full Bench',
			(int) 10 => 'Cri LJ 134',
			(int) 11 => 'Meenakshisundaram',
			(int) 12 => 'Sundar'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'R.R.',
			(int) 1 => 'E.O.I.',
			(int) 2 => 'Ibrahim',
			(int) 3 => 'Malena',
			(int) 4 => 'Counsel',
			(int) 5 => 'Balakrishnan',
			(int) 6 => 'Sethu',
			(int) 7 => 'Balakrishnan',
			(int) 8 => 'Counsel',
			(int) 9 => 'Balaksrishnan',
			(int) 10 => 'Balakrishnan',
			(int) 11 => 'Sethuraman'
		),
		'TIME' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'about 12.30 noon',
			(int) 1 => 'late in the evening',
			(int) 2 => '7-00 p.m.',
			(int) 3 => '9-9-1995',
			(int) 4 => 'the evening',
			(int) 5 => '2-00 p.m.',
			(int) 6 => '7-15 p.m.',
			(int) 7 => 'the evening',
			(int) 8 => '9-15 p.m.',
			(int) 9 => 'the afternoon',
			(int) 10 => 'twenty-four hours',
			(int) 11 => '9.15 p.m.',
			(int) 12 => 'the afternoon',
			(int) 13 => 'Several hours later',
			(int) 14 => '9-9-1995'
		),
		'FAC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Angappa Naicken Street',
			(int) 1 => 'Madras Harbour',
			(int) 2 => 'the Central Prison'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'third',
			(int) 1 => 'first',
			(int) 2 => 'third',
			(int) 3 => 'first',
			(int) 4 => '9th',
			(int) 5 => 'first',
			(int) 6 => 'first',
			(int) 7 => 'second',
			(int) 8 => 'first',
			(int) 9 => 'third',
			(int) 10 => 'first',
			(int) 11 => 'first',
			(int) 12 => 'first',
			(int) 13 => 'second',
			(int) 14 => 'second',
			(int) 15 => 'first',
			(int) 16 => 'second',
			(int) 17 => 'first',
			(int) 18 => 'first'
		),
		'EVENT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'H.C.M.P. No'
		),
		'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Superintendent of Central Prison'
		),
		'QUANTITY' => array(
			(int) 0 => '0.5 cm',
			(int) 1 => '10 cm',
			(int) 2 => '4 x 1 cm',
			(int) 3 => '10 cm',
			(int) 4 => '10 x 7 cm',
			(int) 5 => '3 x 2 cm',
			(int) 6 => '10 x 2 cm',
			(int) 7 => '10 x 1 cm',
			(int) 8 => '3 cm',
			(int) 9 => '10-9-1995'
		),
		'MONEY' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'three marks',
			(int) 1 => 'three marks'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Nathu v. State',
			(int) 1 => 'contra'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '787510',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 21, 32 and 226; <a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 120B, 420, 467 and 471',
			'appealno' => 'H.C.P. No. 1363 of 1995',
			'appellant' => 'K.M. Rafiudeen Alias Rafique',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'K.M. Rafiudeen Alias Rafique Vs. the Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Madras and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - habeas corpus - Article 21 of Constitution of India - petitioner sought to issue habeas corpus for production of himself and two others remanded in prison so that they could be set at liberty - further plea was for compensation award against officials of revenue intelligence - infringement of indefeasible rights of petitioner and other detenues in custody - through violence practiced by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence officials petitioner and other detenues sustained injuries - violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 - detenues can claim for compensation after disposal of criminal proceedings - criminal proceedings directed to initiated against erring officials.


 -  -  He has further made a plea for award of compensation as well for directions for initiation of appropriate legal proceedings, against erring officials of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, T. He was kept illegally in their office for 1 1/2 days and it was made to appear that the statement was voluntarily given by him on 31-8-1995. The officers took him and others to the Magistrate late in the evening after warning them that they should not complain about ill treatment, to the Magistrate, when produced before him. The officers were able to effectively prevent them from complaining to the Magistrate. The patient also complained of giddiness and pain over the left thigh, left leg and left side of abdomen. foot +Meenakshisundaram also complained to the doctor that he was assaulted by DRI men on the evening of 30-8-95 with lathies and boots. The deponent has stated, that prayers regarding initiation of appropriate legal proceedings as well award of compensation against the erring officials, will not arise. He has prayed for dismissal of the main Habeas Corpus Petition as well as the H. Petitioner has underlined in the reply affidavit, that allegations of ill-treatment by DRI officials against him and others have been proved by the wounds and injuries found and recorded by jail authorities at the time of admission in jail, as well by the reports submitted by the doctors of Government General Hospital, Madras, who had noticed multiple injuries on them. He then argued, that if the case of the petitioner were to be accepted at this stage, the entire prosecution initiated against the petitioner, the other two detenus as well as their associates, will stand adversely affected. 11. The New Remand Admission Book relates to the period commencing from 18-6-1995 and ending with 10-9-1995. We are satisfied prima facie that this Remand Admission Book has been maintained in the regular course of business. Sriramala, learned Public Prosecutor, representing the second respondent submitted, that these two registers produced by the second respondent, on our directions, clearly show, that they have been maintained in the regular course of business. At the same time, Courts, cannot close their eyes to alleged custodial violence, for it can be termed as one of the worst crimes in a civilised society governed by the rule of law. However, parties on either side affirm that the main foundation for the prosecution case, is the confession statements allegedly made by these three persons -described as voluntary by the first respondent and condemned as outcome of extortion by the petitioner and others. Rajamanickam, that the learned Magistrate would not have failed to notice the bleeding through mouth, if it had existed, on the petitioner.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Nathu v. State of Uttar Pradesh;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' M. Abdul Nazeer, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' P. Rajamanickam, Special Public Prosecutor and ;B. Srirammalu, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Chennai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1995-11-29',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Jayarama Chouta and ;T.S. Arunachalam, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. Petitioner K.M. Rafiudeen alias Rafique, sons of Kajamoideen, preferred this Habeas Corpus petition on 7-9-1995 when he was detained in Central Prison, Madras, praying for issue of a habeas for production of himself and two others, Menakshisundaram alias Sundar and Setharaman, similarly remanded and kept in Central Prison, Madras, so that they could be set at liberty. He has further made a plea for award of compensation as well for directions for initiation of appropriate legal proceedings, against erring officials of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, T. Nagar, Madras. In the affidavit sworn to by the petitioner in support of his prayer, he has stated that he was renamed to judicial custody on 31-8-1995 in R.R. No. 93/95 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.I., Egnore, Madras, at or about 7-15 p.m., along with Meenakshisundaram alias Sundar and Sethuraman. The remand report produced before the Magistrate pleading for judicial custody relies upon statements made by the three of them, which was extorted, petitioner would have it that at or about 12.30 noon on 30-8-1995, when he was proceeding to the mosque on his bike from Angappa Naicken Street, one Dorai, already known to him, enquired if he would required perfumes, torch-lights etc. Dorai was having a black colour bag and some files. On noticiting an approaching jeep, Dorai ran away leaving behind the bag. Certain officers who arrived by the jeep, rushed towards him and stopped him. They questioned him about the person who was conversing with him a little earlier. He informed them that Dorai was known to him, since he used to buy from him pant bits and shirt bits. However, he was forcibly taken to the office of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, T. Nagar, Madras. He was beaten and harassed there. He was compelled to write, that he along with his friend Sundar, arranged to export snake skins for one Majid Bai alias Srinivasan, when he informed the authorities that he had no connection whatever with snake-skins, they removed his clothes and beat him with lathies, rulers, hands and legs mercilessly and tortured him, which he was not able to withstand. He was further compelled to write that one Sethuraman also accompanied him to a place near Ramachandra Medical College, Porar and that he had transferred the container in a lorry, which was intercepted by DRI Officers at Madras Harbour. They further pressurised him to write that he knew the persons found in two or three photographs, which were in the possession of these officers. When he refused to accede, he was battered by a batch of DRI officers. After giving further details about the manner of compelling to write more material, the deponent has stated that the officers had also brought Sundar, Sethuraman, Ibrahim and another, to their office and manhandled them with hands, legs, lathies and rulers. Each one of them was kept in a separate room and thereafter the officers of DRI closed the doors and windows, since they were crying, unable to tolerate indiscriminate beating. Petitioner has further specifically stated that one officer hit him on his mouth with his fist resulting in oozing of blood. He was not given any food or permitted to contact any of his friends or family members. Ultimately, he had no option except submitting to the will of the officers and write down according to their dictation, incriminating himself and others. He has certainly stated that his statement was not voluntary, but was the outcome of extortion arising out of physical third degree violence, on his body. He was kept illegally in their office for 1 1/2 days and it was made to appear that the statement was voluntarily given by him on 31-8-1995. The officers took him and others to the Magistrate late in the evening after warning them that they should not complain about ill treatment, to the Magistrate, when produced before him. If they chose to make any such complaint, they would not only object to releasing them on bail, but also would put them behind the bars under COFEPOSA ACT. All of them were produced before the learned Magistrate at his residence. He and other two detenus were unable even to climb the staircase and the officers encircled them to prevent others watching their movements and suffering. The officers were able to effectively prevent them from complaining to the Magistrate. From the house of the Magistrate, they were escorted to the jail. At the Central Prison, Madras, injuries found on them were recorded, at the time of their admission therein. They were treated in the jail hospital. According to the petitioner, such highhanded 'inhuman act', indulged in by the officers of the first respondent was violative of Article 21 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> since law never sanctions either physical violence or extortion of statements by using third degree illegal methods. He has then averred that wounds and injuries on his body were still visible, which would establish that he was beaten by the officers of DRI when he was kept in their illegal custody from 30-8-1995 till 7-00 p.m. on 31-8-1995. He has plead for production of himself and others before this Court, since the injuries were still visible on them, so that the Court could scrutinise the harm meted out to them. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. While entertaining the instant Habeas Corpus Petition, along with H.C.M.P. No. 84 of 1995 preferred for issue of directions to jail authorities to produce all the three of them immediately before this Court for recording of wounds and injuries on their bodies and for directions for immediate medical examination, pending disposal of the main Habeas Corpus Petition, this Court, on 7-9-1995, held that it would be desirable to ascertain the nature of injuries inflicted on the detenus and the treatment given to them for the said purpose. This Court directed that Superintendent of Central Prison, Madras, to produce the three detenus before the Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Madras, on 8-9-1995 for medical examination and for filing of a report with regard to such examination. This Habeas Corpus Petition and the H.C.M.P. was directed to be called again on 11-9-1995. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Some time later, the Superintendent, Central Prison, Madras, forwarded to the registry of this Court, three medical reports issued by the Dean, Government General Hospital, Madras, in respect of the three detenus. This communication was received by the Registry on 13-9-1995. The report of the Dean, Government General Hospital, in respect of the three detenus, shows that Sethuraman, aged about 32 years, Refiudeen, aged about 36 years, and Meenakshisundaram, aged about 30 years, were admitted as in patients in Government General Hospital, Madras, on 9-9-1995 and discharged on 11-9-1995. The doctor who examined Rafiudeen has mentioned in the discharge summary that the victim had told him that he was assaulted by the DRI officials with lathies and shoes on 30-8-1995 at T. Nagar. The history also shows complaint of bleeding from the mouth and of vomititng. The patient also complained of giddiness and pain over the left thigh, left leg and left side of abdomen. The medical officer noticed the following ten injuries of Rafiudeen : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Abrasion - Mucoosa of upper lip. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. Brown coloured contusion Rt. Shoulder (2 x 0.5 cm.) </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. 10 cm. size healed wound - Lt. scapular region. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. Cane mark (4 x 1 cm.) mid-arm left. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Cane mark (reddish brown) 10 cm. over left iliac fossa. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Contusion left thigh - Reddish brown (10 x 7 cm.) - Tender on palpation. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Contusion - lateral to knee joint (3 x 2 cm.) </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Tenderness - left medical malleolus. No deformity. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. Contusion (cane mark) over posterolateral part of right thigh (10 x 2 cm.). </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. Reddish brown (came mark) over medial aspect of left thigh near the knee joint (10 x 1 cm.) X-Ray did not reveal fracture on the right ankle and feet. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On detenu Meenakshisundaram, the same medical officer found the following injuries : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Cane marks on the skin over Rt. shoulder, upper 11/3, lower 1/3, middle 1/3 of the Rt. arm. Superficial contusion. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. Tenderness - Lateral epicondy Lt. elbow. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. Cane marks over the medial aspect of left thigh (superficial) contusion) and Rt. upper arm (reddish brown colour). </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. A 3 cm. abrasion over the medial aspect of lower 1/3 of left thigh-healed (reddish brown scab). </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Tenderness medial malleolus of left leg. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Tenderness - Sole of Rt. foot +. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Meenakshisundaram also complained to the doctor that he was assaulted by DRI men on the evening of 30-8-95 with lathies and boots. He had no history of vomiting, hematosis and Malena, loss of consciousness and ENT bleeding. X-Ray of neck, right foot and ankle did not reveal any fracture. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Detenu Sethuraman was also examined by another doctor and he had the same complaint to make as the other two detenus. Medical Officer found reddish brown cane marks over the left shin of Sethuraman, and three marks over the left wrist and hand. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Copies of the Medical report were furnished to the petitioner and the respondents. A detailed counter-affidavit has been sworn to on behalf of the first respondent by C. Rajendran, Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, T. Nagar, Madras-17. This counter-affidavit was sworn to on 9th October, 1995, apparently after receiving copies of the medical report. The deponent has claimed that the petitioner and two others were arrested on 31-8-1995 and yet another person was arrested on 2-9-1995. The circumstances under which such arrests had taken place have been detailed in the counter-affidavit, about which we are not concerned in this Habeas Corpus petition. It is the case of the respondents that these detenus have committed offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 467, 471 and 420, I.P.C. apart from commission of offences under Section 135 of the Customs Act read with Section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. He has further stated, that Meenakshisundaram and Sethuraman was apprehended on 30-8-1995 and they had given voluntary statements admitting their roles in the crime. There is no dispute, in the counter-affidavit, that these three persons were apprehended on 30-8-1995 and enquired, though the arrest was on the next day at 2-00 p.m. The counter-affidavit also admits that all the three detenu were produced before the Magistrate at 7-15 p.m. on 31-8-1995. It has been specifically pointed out in the counter-affidavit that before the Magistrate, none of the detenus had whispered about any ill-treatment or assault by any officer of the DRI or injuries having been sustained by them or even about any statements having been extorted from them, as now alleged. The deponent has further averred in his counter-affidavit, that if the averments made by the petitioner now, were true, he would have definitely alleged before the remanding Magistrate that he was assaulted by DRI officers and he was forced to write a statement and would have also shown the injuries on his person to the Magistrate. This piece of conduct itself, according to the depondent, was enough to establish that the allegations now trotted out in the affidavit of the petitioners, were totally false and have been coined to make out a case before this Court in order to create a defence and intimidate the officers concerned in the detection of this offence. The counter-affidavit denies that the detenus were compelled to write down the statements, in spite of their involvement in the impugned crime. The allegations made by the petitioner that the detenus were kept in separate rooms and they were manhandled with hands, legs and rulers, after closing the doors and windows, since they were crying, have been denied. In short, every allegation made in petitioner's affidavit, has been denied in the counter-affidavit. The first respondent has also stated, that the petitioner had given out his first statement on 30-8-1985 itself and the second statement was written by him on the next day, after seizure was effected. He has denied, about DRI officials having coerced the detenus from complaining to the Magistrate by threatening them with detention under the COFEPOSA Act, or opposition to bail, in the event of disclosure. The deponent would have it that if the detenus had suffered such serious injuries as alleged, it would not have escaped the notice of the Magistrate. The counter-affidavit further adds that for the injuries said to have been recorded by the jail authorities, namely, bruises, contusions, etc., at the time of remand, the officials of the DRI cannot be held responsible for the reasons set out earlier. The officers of the Department were not concerned with the alleged ill-treatment or alleged injuries, for which Departmental officers were not responsible. The first respondent has reiterated in the counter-affidavit that no illegal act was committed. The deponent has stated, that prayers regarding initiation of appropriate legal proceedings as well award of compensation against the erring officials, will not arise. He has prayed for dismissal of the main Habeas Corpus Petition as well as the H.C.M.P. as unsustainable on facts and law. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Petitioner has sworn to reply affidavit on 31-10-1995, wherein he has reiterated his definite case. He has then stated that the medical reports now available would suffice to prove, that false and involuntary statements stood recorded from him and other detenus by use of third decree methods. According to him, the first respondent cannot take a stand that they had not complained to the Magistrate about ill-treatment after having effectively prevented them from making any such complaint. He has affirmed that DRI officials were responsible for the injuries found on their bodies, proved by the jail admission records and medical reports. Petitioner has underlined in the reply affidavit, that allegations of ill-treatment by DRI officials against him and others have been proved by the wounds and injuries found and recorded by jail authorities at the time of admission in jail, as well by the reports submitted by the doctors of Government General Hospital, Madras, who had noticed multiple injuries on them. Award of compensation and initiation of appropriate action against erring officials have again been reiterated in the counter-affidavit. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. M. Abdul Nazeer, petitioner's learned Counsel, graphically described before us the case of the petitioner narrated in his affidavit and reply affidavit and emphasised that the detenus, inclusive of the petitioner, who were apprehend on 30-8-1995, and allegedly arrested on 31-8-1995, were wholly in the custody of the DRI officials till they were handed over to prison authorities after obtaining remand from the concerned Magistrate on the evening of 31-8-1995. He pointed out that the petitioner and other detenus had apparently sustained injuries found on them when they were in the custody of DRI officials, for, in the Central Prison, Madras, when they were examined physically, injuries were noticed on all of them, which were entered in the jail registers, before they were sent for treatment to the prison doctor. He pointed out, that custody of all the three of them by DRI officials from 30-8-1995 till handing over to prison authorities, stands admitted and if that be so, the DRI officials were bound to account for the injuries found on them. Of course, he attacked the confession statements as being the outcome of torture and coercion. He contended that every one of the prayers made by the petitioner, deserved to be upheld. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Mr. P. Rajamanickam, learned Counsel representing the first respondent referred to several paragraphs of the counter-affidavit and submitted, that the whole claim of the petitioner that he and two other were injured while in custody, must be held to be false, since the telling circumstance of bleeding through mouth by the petitioner could not have escaped the attention of the learned Magistrate when they were produced for remand before him. He submitted that the petitioner and two others, in conjunction with others, have committed very serious offences and with a view to escape from the clutches of law, they have trotted out a case of torture, so that it could be used as the main plank of defence at a later stage. However, when questioned by the Court, he admitted that commencing from the time of apprehension on 30-8-1995, till they were produced before the prison authorities, all the three of them were in the custody of the DRI officials. He added that DRI officials Ganabalan and Balakrishnan were the persons who escorted the petitioner and the other detenus to the learned Magistrate and later to the jail premises. He submitted that the DRI officials have already taken expert medical opinion and they will be able to disprove, at the appropriate time, that these persons could not have sustained the injuries noticed by prison authorities and the Medical Officers at Government General Hospital, Madras, at the time and in the manner alleged. He then argued, that if the case of the petitioner were to be accepted at this stage, the entire prosecution initiated against the petitioner, the other two detenus as well as their associates, will stand adversely affected. He did urge, that the confessions recorded from these persons, would, of course, be the main plank of the prosecution. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Since the petitioner has made specific allegations in his affidavit that the jail authorities had noticed injuries on all the three of them, soon after production at the Central Prison, Madras, we deemed it necessary to call for the remand admission book relating to 31-8-1995 from Central Prison, Madras. We also directed production of the admission book at Central Prison, Madras, relating to the date, with which we are now concerned. Mr. B. Sriramulu, learned Public Prosecutor, obtained the same from the prison authorities and placed them for our scrutiny. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The New Remand Admission Book relates to the period commencing from 18-6-1995 and ending with 10-9-1995. We are satisfied prima facie that this Remand Admission Book has been maintained in the regular course of business. This admission book shows that no production by K. Balakrishnan and Gunabalan, I.O., DRI, Madras, Refiudeen (89296) was received at the Central Prison on 31-8-1995. At that point of time, a contusion on the upper lip of Rafiudeen was noticed. He has also swelling due to beating on his left hand and right shoulder. Meenakshisundaram alias Sundaram, who was received in prison along with Refiudeen had swelling due to beating on his left shoulder and he had similar swellings on his feet. His serial number is 89297. Sethuraman alias Sethu was also received in prison along with the other two, on production by the officials mentioned earlier and his serial number is 89298. No mention has been made in this admission book of any injuries noticed on Sethuraman alias Sethu. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The Admission Book commencing from 27-8-1995, at page 37 shows that at 9-15 p.m. on 31-8-1995, on the orders from the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Madras, through DRI, T. Nagar, Gunabalan and Balakrishnan, I.O. and Sepoy Janakaraj, these three persons serially number as 89296 to 89398 were admitted in Central Prison, Madras. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Mr. P. Rajamanickam, first respondent's learned Counsel, requested our permission to peruse the prison registers and we acceded to his request. After perusing the registers, he commented that the signatures of Gunabalan and Balaksrishnan have not been obtained in the registers. When we questioned Mr. Rajamanickam as to why he was pointing out non-obtaining of signatures, he contended that in certain cases, signatures, have been obtained from those who had produced the remand prisoners and the same was conspicuously absent in this instance. However, he did not dispute that Gunabalan and Balakrishnan, officials of DRI, had produced these three persons before the prison authorities, after continuous custody with them from the afternoon of 30-8-1995. He pleaded for dismissal of this Habeas Corpus Petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Mr. B. Sriramala, learned Public Prosecutor, representing the second respondent submitted, that these two registers produced by the second respondent, on our directions, clearly show, that they have been maintained in the regular course of business. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. We have narrated all the facts brought to our notice by counsel, three in number. Of course, as rightly contended by Mr. P. Rajamanickam, after respondent's learned Counsel, the offences alleged against the petitioner and two other detenus, are of a serious nature and the prosecution against them will have to be allowed to reach its logical termination. At the same time, Courts, cannot close their eyes to alleged custodial violence, for it can be termed as one of the worst crimes in a civilised society governed by the rule of law. Quite often, the Supreme Court has observed that convicts, prisoners or undertrials are not denuded of their fundamental rights under Article 21 and it is only such restrictions, as are permitted by law, which can be imposed on the enjoyment of the fundamental right by such persons. It is an obligation of the State of ensure that there is no infringement of the indefeasible rights of a citizen of life, except in accordance with proceeding established by law, while the citizen is in its custody, whether he be a suspect undertrial or convict. The duty of care on the part of the State is strict and admits of no exception. The wrongdoer is accountable and the State is responsible if the person in custody of the police stood deprived of his life, except according to the procedure established by law. Again, the Supreme Court has consistently held that while granting relief to a victim for infraction and invasion of his rights guaranteed under Article 21, it is not always enough to relegate him to the ordinary remedy of a civil suit to claim damages for the tortious act of the State, as that remedy in private law indeed is available to the aggrieved party. The Courts have the obligation to satisfy the social aspirations of the citizens, because the Courts and the law are for the people and expected to respond to their aspirations. The primary source of the public law proceedings stems from the prerogative writs and the Courts have therefore, to evolve 'new tools' to give relief in public law by moulding it according to the situation with a view to preserve and protect the rule of law. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. It is also evident from the pronouncements of the Supreme Court that the Supreme Court and the High Courts, being the protectors of the civil liberties of the citizen, have not only the power and jurisdiction, but also an obligation to grant relief in exercising of their jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 to a victim, whose fundamental rights under Article 21 are established to have been flagrantly infringed by calling upon the State to repair the damage done by its officers to the fundamental rights of the citizen, notwithstanding the right of the citizen to the remedy, by way of a civil suit or criminal proceedings. The State of course, has the right to be indemnified, by taking such action as may be available to it, against a wrongdoer in accordance with law through appropriate proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. A variety of decided cases have been placed before us, wherein either the Supreme Court or the High Courts have awarded compensation for custodial deaths or violence inflicted on victims, while they were in custody. But, almost in all such cases, the prosecution initiated by the State against those in custody had either abated or stood terminated, while, of course, the prosecution against those erring officials who were responsible for infliction of violence on persons while in their custody, were either pending or had a base of report submitted on enquiry, or were directed to be instituted after investigation. Here is a case where serious offences, which would affect the economy of the country, are alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and other detenus and their associates. Of course, these three detenus have enough opportunity to defend themselves and put forth their innocence before the trial Court. Equally, it will be possible for the prosecuting agency, on the basis of the evidence to be placed before the trial Court, to demand a conviction. That exercise is always open to both parties and that may not have to detain as generally in Habeas Corpus Petitions of this nature. However, parties on either side affirm that the main foundation for the prosecution case, is the confession statements allegedly made by these three persons - described as voluntary by the first respondent and condemned as outcome of extortion by the petitioner and others. If such confessions were voluntary or otherwise, may have again to attract the attention of the learned trial Judge. It will be relevant at this stage to refer to the observations of Ratnavel Pandian, J., as he then was, speaking on behalf of the Full Bench, in Roshan Beevi v. Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Public Dept., 1983 Mad LW (Cri) 289 : 1984 Cri LJ 134). The observations read as hereunder (at p. 153 of Cri LJ) : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'If, in a given case, the Customs Officials detains any person required or summoned under the provisions of the Customs Act for a prolonged period, even exceeding twenty-four hours, or keeps him in closed doors and a captive prisoner surrounded by officials or locks him in a room or confines him to an office premises, he does so at his peril, because Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act do not authorise the Officer belonging to the Customs Department to detain a person for a prolonged custody and deprive him of the elementary facilities and privileges to which he is entitled. In such a situation, the officer must be held to have over-stepped his limits, and any confessional statement obtained from such a person by keeping him a prolonged custody has to be regard with grave suspicion, because there is always room for criticism that such a confession might have been obtained from extorted mal-treatment or induced by improper means. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Nathu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, : 1956CriLJ152 , the prolonged custody may stamp the confessional statement so obtained as involuntary one, and the intrinsic value of such a statement may be vitiated.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is thus evident that the question whether a person stood kept in prolonged custody, or he was inflicted with violence while in such custody, are questions of fact, which have to be carefully considered as against the background of circumstances, disclosed in each case. Naturally, no inflexible standards for universal guidance could be laid down. Since the confession statements of those three persons will be the basic material before the trial Court, on which either party would depend, to secure advantage in their favour, we are of the opinion that at this stage it will not be prudent for us, to offer a definite opinion as to the right of the petitioner and other detenus to claim compensation by invoking our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, irrespective of the rights available to them in the normal civil forum. At the same time, we are bound to mention that, on the basis of submission made by either party, prima facie, it is evident that these three persons who were apprehended on 30-8-1995 were continuously in the custody of DRI officials, till they were handed over at 9.15 p.m. to the prison authorities on the basis of an order of remand passed by the concerned Magistrate at or about 7-15 p.m. on 31-8-1995, when they were produced for remand. If injuries were found on these three persons, soon after handing over of custody by DRI officials to prison authorities, needless to state, that the DRI officials must be held responsible to account for these injuries. It is all the more relevant in this case, since admittedly the DRI officials were holding these three persons in their custody throughout. In fairness, Mr. P. Rajamanickam must have placed before us the contra expert medical opinion allegedly obtained by the DRI officials, to disprove that the petitioner and the other two detenus, could not have sustained injuries found on them in the manner alleged by them. We are totally unimpressed, with the submission made by Mr. P. Rajamanickam, that the learned Magistrate would not have failed to notice the bleeding through mouth, if it had existed, on the petitioner. We cannot overlook the specific case of the petitioner in his affidavit that he was beaten from 30-8-1995 and the statement recorded from him was on the afternoon of 31-8-1995. It is also the specific case of the petitioner that on fisting on his mouth by an officer, blood started oozing. Several hours later, petitioner was produced before the Magistrate and in that backdrop, it will be odd to expect continuous oozing of blood, to be markedly apparent for visualisation by the Magistrate. Irrespective of the truth or otherwise of the case of the petitioner, which will have to be tested, we cannot ignore his case, at this stage, that all the three of them were surrounded by DRI officials when they were taken to the residence of the Magistrate at or about 7-15 p.m. for the purpose of obtaining remand. The situation in which these persons were produced before the Magistrate, cannot be one beyond our comprehension. We must also state that the records produced by the jail authorities, on our summoning them, prima facie show that except Sethuraman, the other two detenus had visible injuries on them, when they were produced inside the jail campus by the DRI officials. We have perused the two books produced by the second respondent and prima facie it appears that they have been maintained in the regular course of business. The entries in the New Remand Admission Book, coupled with the medical reports furnished to us, by the Dean, Government General Hospital, Madras, show that petitioner and Meenakshisundaram alias Sundar had sustained multiple injuries in different parts of their bodies and cane marks were also visible. The Medical Officer further found reddish brown cane mark over the left shin and three marks over the left hand of Sethuraman, who was examined on 9-9-1995. As to what would be the effect of these injuries noticed on Sethuraman, vis-a-vis non-entry of these injuries in the New Remand Admission Book on 31-8-1995, may have to attract the attention of the trial Magistrate, during the process, of the trial proceedings. It will be neither fair, nor just to accede at this stage to the argument of Mr. P. Rajamanickam that Sethuraman must be held to have not sustained injuries while in custody of the DRI officials. If that emphatic stand of Mr. P. Rajamanickam has to be accepted, equally, we have to accept that the other two persons had sustained injuries only because of violence practised on them by the DRI officials. As we have already stated on the peculiar nature of the case placed before us, we are rather inclined to keep this question of compensation open without offering definite findings, for in our opinion, such a procedure would tend, for the furtherance of the case of justice. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. While the issue of compensation can be kept open, to be decided at a later stage and leaving such right open to be invoked by the petitioner and the other two detenus, under Article 226 of the Constitution, at the appropriate time, we have to still decide the effect of the other prayer made by the petitioner seeking, directions for initiation of appropriate legal proceedings against erring officials of the first respondent. We have already expressed court view that prima facie it appears that the DRI officials may have to explain the injuries found on these three persons, since it is admitted that they were in the custody of the DRI officials throughout. Naturally, as a follow-up, to this view of ours, we have to necessarily direct the Commissioner of Police, Madras, to cause registration of crime against the erring DRI officials on the basis of the affidavit of the petitioner and the records referred to by as (Jail records and medical reports) and have it investigated, leading necessarily to filing of a final report in accordance with law. This exercise, the Commissioner of Police, shall do without any delay. In the event of a positive final report being filed, it will be open to both parties to plead for joint trial of the prosecution initiated by the first respondent against the petitioner and the other detenus and the prosecution against the DRI officials at the instance of the State. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. We reiterate that the claim for compensation made by the petitioner and two others in this Habeas Corpus Petition, has not been rejected or foreclosed for the right to seek this remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution stands kept open by us, if the petitioner and the other detenus so choose to invoke our said jurisdiction at the appropriate time, after disposal of the criminal proceedings. This Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of accordingly. This criminal proceedings shall be proceeded with and terminated, without being influenced by any of the observations made herein. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Order accordingly.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1996CriLJ2938',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Madras and Others',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '787510'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'K.M. Rafiudeen Alias Rafique Vs. the Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Madras and Others Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Article 21 of the Constitution of India',
		(int) 1 => 'Section 135',
		(int) 2 => 'the Customs Act',
		(int) 3 => 'Section 3',
		(int) 4 => 'the COFEPOSA Act',
		(int) 5 => 'the Medical Officers at',
		(int) 6 => 'Article 21',
		(int) 7 => 'Article 21',
		(int) 8 => 'Article 21',
		(int) 9 => 'the Customs Act',
		(int) 10 => 'the Customs Act',
		(int) 11 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution',
		(int) 12 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution',
		(int) 13 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Rafique',
		(int) 1 => 'Kajamoideen',
		(int) 2 => 'the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence',
		(int) 3 => 'the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate',
		(int) 4 => 'Sethuraman',
		(int) 5 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 6 => 'Dorai',
		(int) 7 => 'the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence',
		(int) 8 => 'Srinivasan',
		(int) 9 => 'Sethuraman',
		(int) 10 => 'Ramachandra Medical College',
		(int) 11 => 'Porar',
		(int) 12 => 'DRI Officers',
		(int) 13 => 'DRI',
		(int) 14 => 'Sethuraman',
		(int) 15 => 'DRI',
		(int) 16 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 17 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 18 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 19 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 20 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 21 => 'DRI',
		(int) 22 => 'Court',
		(int) 23 => 'Court',
		(int) 24 => 'Habeas Corpus Petition',
		(int) 25 => 'Court',
		(int) 26 => 'Habeas Corpus Petition',
		(int) 27 => 'Court',
		(int) 28 => 'This Habeas Corpus Petition',
		(int) 29 => 'Court',
		(int) 30 => 'the Dean, Government General Hospital',
		(int) 31 => 'Registry',
		(int) 32 => 'the Dean, Government General Hospital',
		(int) 33 => 'Sethuraman',
		(int) 34 => 'Government General Hospital',
		(int) 35 => 'DRI',
		(int) 36 => 'T. Nagar',
		(int) 37 => 'Abrasion - Mucoosa',
		(int) 38 => 'Cane',
		(int) 39 => 'Cane',
		(int) 40 => 'DRI',
		(int) 41 => 'ENT',
		(int) 42 => 'Sethuraman',
		(int) 43 => 'Directorate of Revenue Intelligence',
		(int) 44 => 'the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation',
		(int) 45 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 46 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 47 => 'DRI',
		(int) 48 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 49 => 'DRI',
		(int) 50 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 51 => 'Court',
		(int) 52 => 'DRI',
		(int) 53 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 54 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 55 => 'DRI',
		(int) 56 => 'Department',
		(int) 57 => 'Departmental',
		(int) 58 => 'Habeas Corpus Petition',
		(int) 59 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 60 => 'DRI',
		(int) 61 => 'DRI',
		(int) 62 => 'Government General Hospital',
		(int) 63 => 'DRI',
		(int) 64 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 65 => 'DRI',
		(int) 66 => 'DRI',
		(int) 67 => 'DRI',
		(int) 68 => 'Counsel',
		(int) 69 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 70 => 'Court',
		(int) 71 => 'DRI',
		(int) 72 => 'DRI',
		(int) 73 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 74 => 'DRI',
		(int) 75 => 'Government General Hospital',
		(int) 76 => 'Public Prosecutor',
		(int) 77 => 'The New Remand Admission Book',
		(int) 78 => 'this Remand Admission Book',
		(int) 79 => 'I.O.',
		(int) 80 => 'DRI',
		(int) 81 => 'Sethuraman',
		(int) 82 => 'Sethuraman',
		(int) 83 => 'the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's',
		(int) 84 => 'DRI',
		(int) 85 => 'T. Nagar',
		(int) 86 => 'DRI',
		(int) 87 => 'Public Prosecutor',
		(int) 88 => 'Counsel',
		(int) 89 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 90 => 'State',
		(int) 91 => 'State',
		(int) 92 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 93 => 'State',
		(int) 94 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 95 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 96 => 'the High Courts',
		(int) 97 => 'State',
		(int) 98 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 99 => 'the High Courts',
		(int) 100 => 'State',
		(int) 101 => 'Court',
		(int) 102 => 'Court',
		(int) 103 => 'Habeas Corpus Petitions',
		(int) 104 => 'Ratnavel Pandian',
		(int) 105 => 'Customs',
		(int) 106 => 'the Customs Department',
		(int) 107 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 108 => 'Uttar Pradesh',
		(int) 109 => 'Court',
		(int) 110 => 'DRI',
		(int) 111 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 112 => 'DRI',
		(int) 113 => 'DRI',
		(int) 114 => 'DRI',
		(int) 115 => 'DRI',
		(int) 116 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 117 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 118 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 119 => 'DRI',
		(int) 120 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 121 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 122 => 'DRI',
		(int) 123 => 'the New Remand Admission Book',
		(int) 124 => 'the Dean, Government General Hospital',
		(int) 125 => 'Sethuraman',
		(int) 126 => 'the New Remand Admission Book',
		(int) 127 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 128 => 'Sethuraman',
		(int) 129 => 'DRI',
		(int) 130 => 'DRI',
		(int) 131 => 'DRI',
		(int) 132 => 'DRI',
		(int) 133 => 'DRI',
		(int) 134 => 'the Commissioner of Police',
		(int) 135 => 'DRI',
		(int) 136 => 'State',
		(int) 137 => 'This Habeas Corpus Petition'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Habeas Corpus',
		(int) 1 => 'Madras',
		(int) 2 => 'Menakshisundaram',
		(int) 3 => 'Setharaman',
		(int) 4 => 'Madras',
		(int) 5 => 'T. Nagar',
		(int) 6 => 'Madras',
		(int) 7 => 'Egnore',
		(int) 8 => 'Madras',
		(int) 9 => 'Dorai',
		(int) 10 => 'Dorai',
		(int) 11 => 'T. Nagar',
		(int) 12 => 'Madras',
		(int) 13 => 'Majid Bai',
		(int) 14 => 'Madras',
		(int) 15 => 'Madras',
		(int) 16 => 'Madras',
		(int) 17 => 'Refiudeen',
		(int) 18 => 'X-Ray',
		(int) 19 => 'Meenakshisundaram',
		(int) 20 => 'elbow',
		(int) 21 => 'X-Ray',
		(int) 22 => 'Detenu Sethuraman',
		(int) 23 => 'C. Rajendran',
		(int) 24 => 'T. Nagar',
		(int) 25 => 'Habeas Corpus',
		(int) 26 => 'Sethuraman',
		(int) 27 => 'Madras',
		(int) 28 => 'M. Abdul Nazeer',
		(int) 29 => 'Madras',
		(int) 30 => 'P. Rajamanickam',
		(int) 31 => 'Ganabalan',
		(int) 32 => 'Madras',
		(int) 33 => 'Madras',
		(int) 34 => 'Madras',
		(int) 35 => 'Madras',
		(int) 36 => 'B. Sriramulu',
		(int) 37 => 'K. Balakrishnan',
		(int) 38 => 'Gunabalan',
		(int) 39 => 'Madras',
		(int) 40 => 'Refiudeen',
		(int) 41 => 'Sundaram',
		(int) 42 => 'Refiudeen',
		(int) 43 => 'Madras',
		(int) 44 => 'Gunabalan',
		(int) 45 => 'I.O.',
		(int) 46 => 'Sepoy Janakaraj',
		(int) 47 => 'P. Rajamanickam',
		(int) 48 => 'Gunabalan',
		(int) 49 => 'Rajamanickam',
		(int) 50 => 'Gunabalan',
		(int) 51 => 'B. Sriramala',
		(int) 52 => 'P. Rajamanickam',
		(int) 53 => 'J.',
		(int) 54 => 'Roshan Beevi v.',
		(int) 55 => 'Tamil Nadu',
		(int) 56 => 'Cri LJ',
		(int) 57 => 'P. Rajamanickam',
		(int) 58 => 'P. Rajamanickam',
		(int) 59 => 'Sethuraman',
		(int) 60 => 'P. Rajamanickam',
		(int) 61 => 'P. Rajamanickam',
		(int) 62 => 'Madras'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '7-9-1995',
		(int) 1 => '30-8-1995',
		(int) 2 => 'a little earlier',
		(int) 3 => '1 1/2 days',
		(int) 4 => '1995',
		(int) 5 => '8-9-1995',
		(int) 6 => '11-9-1995',
		(int) 7 => 'about 32 years',
		(int) 8 => 'about 36 years',
		(int) 9 => 'about 30 years',
		(int) 10 => '11-9-1995',
		(int) 11 => 'October, 1995',
		(int) 12 => '467',
		(int) 13 => '1992',
		(int) 14 => 'the next day',
		(int) 15 => 'the next day',
		(int) 16 => '31-10-1995',
		(int) 17 => '89297',
		(int) 18 => '89298',
		(int) 19 => '1983',
		(int) 20 => '1984',
		(int) 21 => '1956CriLJ152',
		(int) 22 => '31-8-1995'
	),
	'LOC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Central Prison',
		(int) 1 => 'Central Prison',
		(int) 2 => 'Sundar',
		(int) 3 => 'the Central Prison',
		(int) 4 => 'Madras',
		(int) 5 => 'Superintendent',
		(int) 6 => 'Madras',
		(int) 7 => 'Madras',
		(int) 8 => 'the Central Prison',
		(int) 9 => 'the Central Prison',
		(int) 10 => 'Central Prison',
		(int) 11 => 'Central Prison',
		(int) 12 => 'Central Prison',
		(int) 13 => 'Madras',
		(int) 14 => 'Govt',
		(int) 15 => 'Madras'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'two',
		(int) 1 => '31-8-1995',
		(int) 2 => 'about 7-15 p.m.',
		(int) 3 => 'three',
		(int) 4 => 'one',
		(int) 5 => 'one',
		(int) 6 => 'one',
		(int) 7 => 'two',
		(int) 8 => 'three',
		(int) 9 => 'one',
		(int) 10 => 'one',
		(int) 11 => '31-8-1995',
		(int) 12 => 'two',
		(int) 13 => '30-8-1995',
		(int) 14 => '31-8-1995',
		(int) 15 => '2.',
		(int) 16 => 'three',
		(int) 17 => '7',
		(int) 18 => 'three',
		(int) 19 => '3',
		(int) 20 => 'three',
		(int) 21 => 'three',
		(int) 22 => '13',
		(int) 23 => 'three',
		(int) 24 => '30-8-1995',
		(int) 25 => 'ten',
		(int) 26 => '1',
		(int) 27 => '2',
		(int) 28 => '2',
		(int) 29 => '3',
		(int) 30 => '4',
		(int) 31 => '5',
		(int) 32 => '6',
		(int) 33 => '7',
		(int) 34 => '8',
		(int) 35 => '9',
		(int) 36 => '10',
		(int) 37 => '1',
		(int) 38 => '11/3',
		(int) 39 => '1/3',
		(int) 40 => '1/3',
		(int) 41 => '2',
		(int) 42 => '3',
		(int) 43 => '4',
		(int) 44 => '1/3',
		(int) 45 => '5',
		(int) 46 => '6',
		(int) 47 => '30-8-95',
		(int) 48 => '5',
		(int) 49 => 'two',
		(int) 50 => '6',
		(int) 51 => 'two',
		(int) 52 => '31-8-1995',
		(int) 53 => '2',
		(int) 54 => '471',
		(int) 55 => '420',
		(int) 56 => '30-8-1995',
		(int) 57 => 'three',
		(int) 58 => '30-8-1995',
		(int) 59 => 'three',
		(int) 60 => '31-8-1995',
		(int) 61 => '30-8-1985',
		(int) 62 => '8',
		(int) 63 => '30-8-1995',
		(int) 64 => '31-8-1995',
		(int) 65 => '31-8-1995',
		(int) 66 => 'three',
		(int) 67 => '30-8-1995',
		(int) 68 => '9',
		(int) 69 => 'two',
		(int) 70 => 'two',
		(int) 71 => '30-8-1995',
		(int) 72 => 'three',
		(int) 73 => 'two',
		(int) 74 => '10',
		(int) 75 => 'three',
		(int) 76 => '31-8-1995',
		(int) 77 => '11',
		(int) 78 => '18-6-1995',
		(int) 79 => '31-8-1995',
		(int) 80 => 'two',
		(int) 81 => '12',
		(int) 82 => '27-8-1995',
		(int) 83 => '37',
		(int) 84 => '31-8-1995',
		(int) 85 => 'three',
		(int) 86 => '89296 to 89398',
		(int) 87 => '13',
		(int) 88 => 'three',
		(int) 89 => '30-8-1995',
		(int) 90 => '14',
		(int) 91 => 'two',
		(int) 92 => '15',
		(int) 93 => 'three',
		(int) 94 => 'two',
		(int) 95 => '16',
		(int) 96 => '226',
		(int) 97 => '17',
		(int) 98 => 'three',
		(int) 99 => 'three',
		(int) 100 => '289',
		(int) 101 => '153',
		(int) 102 => '107',
		(int) 103 => '108',
		(int) 104 => 'three',
		(int) 105 => 'three',
		(int) 106 => '30-8-1995',
		(int) 107 => 'about 7-15 p.m.',
		(int) 108 => '31-8-1995',
		(int) 109 => 'three',
		(int) 110 => 'three',
		(int) 111 => 'two',
		(int) 112 => '30-8-1995',
		(int) 113 => 'three',
		(int) 114 => 'about 7-15 p.m.',
		(int) 115 => 'two',
		(int) 116 => 'two',
		(int) 117 => 'two',
		(int) 118 => '18',
		(int) 119 => 'two',
		(int) 120 => 'three',
		(int) 121 => '19',
		(int) 122 => 'two',
		(int) 123 => '20'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Sundar',
		(int) 1 => 'Meenakshisundaram',
		(int) 2 => 'Sundar',
		(int) 3 => 'Sundar',
		(int) 4 => 'Meenakshisundaram',
		(int) 5 => 'Rafiudeen',
		(int) 6 => 'Meenakshisundaram',
		(int) 7 => 'Rafiudeen',
		(int) 8 => 'Sethu',
		(int) 9 => 'the Full Bench',
		(int) 10 => 'Cri LJ 134',
		(int) 11 => 'Meenakshisundaram',
		(int) 12 => 'Sundar'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'R.R.',
		(int) 1 => 'E.O.I.',
		(int) 2 => 'Ibrahim',
		(int) 3 => 'Malena',
		(int) 4 => 'Counsel',
		(int) 5 => 'Balakrishnan',
		(int) 6 => 'Sethu',
		(int) 7 => 'Balakrishnan',
		(int) 8 => 'Counsel',
		(int) 9 => 'Balaksrishnan',
		(int) 10 => 'Balakrishnan',
		(int) 11 => 'Sethuraman'
	),
	'TIME' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'about 12.30 noon',
		(int) 1 => 'late in the evening',
		(int) 2 => '7-00 p.m.',
		(int) 3 => '9-9-1995',
		(int) 4 => 'the evening',
		(int) 5 => '2-00 p.m.',
		(int) 6 => '7-15 p.m.',
		(int) 7 => 'the evening',
		(int) 8 => '9-15 p.m.',
		(int) 9 => 'the afternoon',
		(int) 10 => 'twenty-four hours',
		(int) 11 => '9.15 p.m.',
		(int) 12 => 'the afternoon',
		(int) 13 => 'Several hours later',
		(int) 14 => '9-9-1995'
	),
	'FAC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Angappa Naicken Street',
		(int) 1 => 'Madras Harbour',
		(int) 2 => 'the Central Prison'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'third',
		(int) 1 => 'first',
		(int) 2 => 'third',
		(int) 3 => 'first',
		(int) 4 => '9th',
		(int) 5 => 'first',
		(int) 6 => 'first',
		(int) 7 => 'second',
		(int) 8 => 'first',
		(int) 9 => 'third',
		(int) 10 => 'first',
		(int) 11 => 'first',
		(int) 12 => 'first',
		(int) 13 => 'second',
		(int) 14 => 'second',
		(int) 15 => 'first',
		(int) 16 => 'second',
		(int) 17 => 'first',
		(int) 18 => 'first'
	),
	'EVENT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'H.C.M.P. No'
	),
	'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Superintendent of Central Prison'
	),
	'QUANTITY' => array(
		(int) 0 => '0.5 cm',
		(int) 1 => '10 cm',
		(int) 2 => '4 x 1 cm',
		(int) 3 => '10 cm',
		(int) 4 => '10 x 7 cm',
		(int) 5 => '3 x 2 cm',
		(int) 6 => '10 x 2 cm',
		(int) 7 => '10 x 1 cm',
		(int) 8 => '3 cm',
		(int) 9 => '10-9-1995'
	),
	'MONEY' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'three marks',
		(int) 1 => 'three marks'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Nathu v. State',
		(int) 1 => 'contra'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '787510',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 21, 32 and 226; <a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 120B, 420, 467 and 471',
		'appealno' => 'H.C.P. No. 1363 of 1995',
		'appellant' => 'K.M. Rafiudeen Alias Rafique',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'K.M. Rafiudeen Alias Rafique Vs. the Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Madras and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - habeas corpus - Article 21 of Constitution of India - petitioner sought to issue habeas corpus for production of himself and two others remanded in prison so that they could be set at liberty - further plea was for compensation award against officials of revenue intelligence - infringement of indefeasible rights of petitioner and other detenues in custody - through violence practiced by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence officials petitioner and other detenues sustained injuries - violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 - detenues can claim for compensation after disposal of criminal proceedings - criminal proceedings directed to initiated against erring officials.


 -  -  He has further made a plea for award of compensation as well for directions for initiation of appropriate legal proceedings, against erring officials of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, T. He was kept illegally in their office for 1 1/2 days and it was made to appear that the statement was voluntarily given by him on 31-8-1995. The officers took him and others to the Magistrate late in the evening after warning them that they should not complain about ill treatment, to the Magistrate, when produced before him. The officers were able to effectively prevent them from complaining to the Magistrate. The patient also complained of giddiness and pain over the left thigh, left leg and left side of abdomen. foot +Meenakshisundaram also complained to the doctor that he was assaulted by DRI men on the evening of 30-8-95 with lathies and boots. The deponent has stated, that prayers regarding initiation of appropriate legal proceedings as well award of compensation against the erring officials, will not arise. He has prayed for dismissal of the main Habeas Corpus Petition as well as the H. Petitioner has underlined in the reply affidavit, that allegations of ill-treatment by DRI officials against him and others have been proved by the wounds and injuries found and recorded by jail authorities at the time of admission in jail, as well by the reports submitted by the doctors of Government General Hospital, Madras, who had noticed multiple injuries on them. He then argued, that if the case of the petitioner were to be accepted at this stage, the entire prosecution initiated against the petitioner, the other two detenus as well as their associates, will stand adversely affected. 11. The New Remand Admission Book relates to the period commencing from 18-6-1995 and ending with 10-9-1995. We are satisfied prima facie that this Remand Admission Book has been maintained in the regular course of business. Sriramala, learned Public Prosecutor, representing the second respondent submitted, that these two registers produced by the second respondent, on our directions, clearly show, that they have been maintained in the regular course of business. At the same time, Courts, cannot close their eyes to alleged custodial violence, for it can be termed as one of the worst crimes in a civilised society governed by the rule of law. However, parties on either side affirm that the main foundation for the prosecution case, is the confession statements allegedly made by these three persons -described as voluntary by the first respondent and condemned as outcome of extortion by the petitioner and others. Rajamanickam, that the learned Magistrate would not have failed to notice the bleeding through mouth, if it had existed, on the petitioner.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Nathu v. State of Uttar Pradesh;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' M. Abdul Nazeer, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' P. Rajamanickam, Special Public Prosecutor and ;B. Srirammalu, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Chennai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1995-11-29',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Jayarama Chouta and ;T.S. Arunachalam, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. Petitioner K.M. Rafiudeen alias Rafique, sons of Kajamoideen, preferred this Habeas Corpus petition on 7-9-1995 when he was detained in Central Prison, Madras, praying for issue of a habeas for production of himself and two others, Menakshisundaram alias Sundar and Setharaman, similarly remanded and kept in Central Prison, Madras, so that they could be set at liberty. He has further made a plea for award of compensation as well for directions for initiation of appropriate legal proceedings, against erring officials of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, T. Nagar, Madras. In the affidavit sworn to by the petitioner in support of his prayer, he has stated that he was renamed to judicial custody on 31-8-1995 in R.R. No. 93/95 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.I., Egnore, Madras, at or about 7-15 p.m., along with Meenakshisundaram alias Sundar and Sethuraman. The remand report produced before the Magistrate pleading for judicial custody relies upon statements made by the three of them, which was extorted, petitioner would have it that at or about 12.30 noon on 30-8-1995, when he was proceeding to the mosque on his bike from Angappa Naicken Street, one Dorai, already known to him, enquired if he would required perfumes, torch-lights etc. Dorai was having a black colour bag and some files. On noticiting an approaching jeep, Dorai ran away leaving behind the bag. Certain officers who arrived by the jeep, rushed towards him and stopped him. They questioned him about the person who was conversing with him a little earlier. He informed them that Dorai was known to him, since he used to buy from him pant bits and shirt bits. However, he was forcibly taken to the office of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, T. Nagar, Madras. He was beaten and harassed there. He was compelled to write, that he along with his friend Sundar, arranged to export snake skins for one Majid Bai alias Srinivasan, when he informed the authorities that he had no connection whatever with snake-skins, they removed his clothes and beat him with lathies, rulers, hands and legs mercilessly and tortured him, which he was not able to withstand. He was further compelled to write that one Sethuraman also accompanied him to a place near Ramachandra Medical College, Porar and that he had transferred the container in a lorry, which was intercepted by DRI Officers at Madras Harbour. They further pressurised him to write that he knew the persons found in two or three photographs, which were in the possession of these officers. When he refused to accede, he was battered by a batch of DRI officers. After giving further details about the manner of compelling to write more material, the deponent has stated that the officers had also brought Sundar, Sethuraman, Ibrahim and another, to their office and manhandled them with hands, legs, lathies and rulers. Each one of them was kept in a separate room and thereafter the officers of DRI closed the doors and windows, since they were crying, unable to tolerate indiscriminate beating. Petitioner has further specifically stated that one officer hit him on his mouth with his fist resulting in oozing of blood. He was not given any food or permitted to contact any of his friends or family members. Ultimately, he had no option except submitting to the will of the officers and write down according to their dictation, incriminating himself and others. He has certainly stated that his statement was not voluntary, but was the outcome of extortion arising out of physical third degree violence, on his body. He was kept illegally in their office for 1 1/2 days and it was made to appear that the statement was voluntarily given by him on 31-8-1995. The officers took him and others to the Magistrate late in the evening after warning them that they should not complain about ill treatment, to the Magistrate, when produced before him. If they chose to make any such complaint, they would not only object to releasing them on bail, but also would put them behind the bars under COFEPOSA ACT. All of them were produced before the learned Magistrate at his residence. He and other two detenus were unable even to climb the staircase and the officers encircled them to prevent others watching their movements and suffering. The officers were able to effectively prevent them from complaining to the Magistrate. From the house of the Magistrate, they were escorted to the jail. At the Central Prison, Madras, injuries found on them were recorded, at the time of their admission therein. They were treated in the jail hospital. According to the petitioner, such highhanded 'inhuman act', indulged in by the officers of the first respondent was violative of Article 21 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> since law never sanctions either physical violence or extortion of statements by using third degree illegal methods. He has then averred that wounds and injuries on his body were still visible, which would establish that he was beaten by the officers of DRI when he was kept in their illegal custody from 30-8-1995 till 7-00 p.m. on 31-8-1995. He has plead for production of himself and others before this Court, since the injuries were still visible on them, so that the Court could scrutinise the harm meted out to them. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. While entertaining the instant Habeas Corpus Petition, along with H.C.M.P. No. 84 of 1995 preferred for issue of directions to jail authorities to produce all the three of them immediately before this Court for recording of wounds and injuries on their bodies and for directions for immediate medical examination, pending disposal of the main Habeas Corpus Petition, this Court, on 7-9-1995, held that it would be desirable to ascertain the nature of injuries inflicted on the detenus and the treatment given to them for the said purpose. This Court directed that Superintendent of Central Prison, Madras, to produce the three detenus before the Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Madras, on 8-9-1995 for medical examination and for filing of a report with regard to such examination. This Habeas Corpus Petition and the H.C.M.P. was directed to be called again on 11-9-1995. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Some time later, the Superintendent, Central Prison, Madras, forwarded to the registry of this Court, three medical reports issued by the Dean, Government General Hospital, Madras, in respect of the three detenus. This communication was received by the Registry on 13-9-1995. The report of the Dean, Government General Hospital, in respect of the three detenus, shows that Sethuraman, aged about 32 years, Refiudeen, aged about 36 years, and Meenakshisundaram, aged about 30 years, were admitted as in patients in Government General Hospital, Madras, on 9-9-1995 and discharged on 11-9-1995. The doctor who examined Rafiudeen has mentioned in the discharge summary that the victim had told him that he was assaulted by the DRI officials with lathies and shoes on 30-8-1995 at T. Nagar. The history also shows complaint of bleeding from the mouth and of vomititng. The patient also complained of giddiness and pain over the left thigh, left leg and left side of abdomen. The medical officer noticed the following ten injuries of Rafiudeen : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Abrasion - Mucoosa of upper lip. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. Brown coloured contusion Rt. Shoulder (2 x 0.5 cm.) </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. 10 cm. size healed wound - Lt. scapular region. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. Cane mark (4 x 1 cm.) mid-arm left. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Cane mark (reddish brown) 10 cm. over left iliac fossa. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Contusion left thigh - Reddish brown (10 x 7 cm.) - Tender on palpation. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. Contusion - lateral to knee joint (3 x 2 cm.) </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Tenderness - left medical malleolus. No deformity. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. Contusion (cane mark) over posterolateral part of right thigh (10 x 2 cm.). </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. Reddish brown (came mark) over medial aspect of left thigh near the knee joint (10 x 1 cm.) X-Ray did not reveal fracture on the right ankle and feet. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On detenu Meenakshisundaram, the same medical officer found the following injuries : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Cane marks on the skin over Rt. shoulder, upper 11/3, lower 1/3, middle 1/3 of the Rt. arm. Superficial contusion. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. Tenderness - Lateral epicondy Lt. elbow. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. Cane marks over the medial aspect of left thigh (superficial) contusion) and Rt. upper arm (reddish brown colour). </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. A 3 cm. abrasion over the medial aspect of lower 1/3 of left thigh-healed (reddish brown scab). </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Tenderness medial malleolus of left leg. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Tenderness - Sole of Rt. foot +. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Meenakshisundaram also complained to the doctor that he was assaulted by DRI men on the evening of 30-8-95 with lathies and boots. He had no history of vomiting, hematosis and Malena, loss of consciousness and ENT bleeding. X-Ray of neck, right foot and ankle did not reveal any fracture. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Detenu Sethuraman was also examined by another doctor and he had the same complaint to make as the other two detenus. Medical Officer found reddish brown cane marks over the left shin of Sethuraman, and three marks over the left wrist and hand. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Copies of the Medical report were furnished to the petitioner and the respondents. A detailed counter-affidavit has been sworn to on behalf of the first respondent by C. Rajendran, Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, T. Nagar, Madras-17. This counter-affidavit was sworn to on 9th October, 1995, apparently after receiving copies of the medical report. The deponent has claimed that the petitioner and two others were arrested on 31-8-1995 and yet another person was arrested on 2-9-1995. The circumstances under which such arrests had taken place have been detailed in the counter-affidavit, about which we are not concerned in this Habeas Corpus petition. It is the case of the respondents that these detenus have committed offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 467, 471 and 420, I.P.C. apart from commission of offences under Section 135 of the Customs Act read with Section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. He has further stated, that Meenakshisundaram and Sethuraman was apprehended on 30-8-1995 and they had given voluntary statements admitting their roles in the crime. There is no dispute, in the counter-affidavit, that these three persons were apprehended on 30-8-1995 and enquired, though the arrest was on the next day at 2-00 p.m. The counter-affidavit also admits that all the three detenu were produced before the Magistrate at 7-15 p.m. on 31-8-1995. It has been specifically pointed out in the counter-affidavit that before the Magistrate, none of the detenus had whispered about any ill-treatment or assault by any officer of the DRI or injuries having been sustained by them or even about any statements having been extorted from them, as now alleged. The deponent has further averred in his counter-affidavit, that if the averments made by the petitioner now, were true, he would have definitely alleged before the remanding Magistrate that he was assaulted by DRI officers and he was forced to write a statement and would have also shown the injuries on his person to the Magistrate. This piece of conduct itself, according to the depondent, was enough to establish that the allegations now trotted out in the affidavit of the petitioners, were totally false and have been coined to make out a case before this Court in order to create a defence and intimidate the officers concerned in the detection of this offence. The counter-affidavit denies that the detenus were compelled to write down the statements, in spite of their involvement in the impugned crime. The allegations made by the petitioner that the detenus were kept in separate rooms and they were manhandled with hands, legs and rulers, after closing the doors and windows, since they were crying, have been denied. In short, every allegation made in petitioner's affidavit, has been denied in the counter-affidavit. The first respondent has also stated, that the petitioner had given out his first statement on 30-8-1985 itself and the second statement was written by him on the next day, after seizure was effected. He has denied, about DRI officials having coerced the detenus from complaining to the Magistrate by threatening them with detention under the COFEPOSA Act, or opposition to bail, in the event of disclosure. The deponent would have it that if the detenus had suffered such serious injuries as alleged, it would not have escaped the notice of the Magistrate. The counter-affidavit further adds that for the injuries said to have been recorded by the jail authorities, namely, bruises, contusions, etc., at the time of remand, the officials of the DRI cannot be held responsible for the reasons set out earlier. The officers of the Department were not concerned with the alleged ill-treatment or alleged injuries, for which Departmental officers were not responsible. The first respondent has reiterated in the counter-affidavit that no illegal act was committed. The deponent has stated, that prayers regarding initiation of appropriate legal proceedings as well award of compensation against the erring officials, will not arise. He has prayed for dismissal of the main Habeas Corpus Petition as well as the H.C.M.P. as unsustainable on facts and law. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Petitioner has sworn to reply affidavit on 31-10-1995, wherein he has reiterated his definite case. He has then stated that the medical reports now available would suffice to prove, that false and involuntary statements stood recorded from him and other detenus by use of third decree methods. According to him, the first respondent cannot take a stand that they had not complained to the Magistrate about ill-treatment after having effectively prevented them from making any such complaint. He has affirmed that DRI officials were responsible for the injuries found on their bodies, proved by the jail admission records and medical reports. Petitioner has underlined in the reply affidavit, that allegations of ill-treatment by DRI officials against him and others have been proved by the wounds and injuries found and recorded by jail authorities at the time of admission in jail, as well by the reports submitted by the doctors of Government General Hospital, Madras, who had noticed multiple injuries on them. Award of compensation and initiation of appropriate action against erring officials have again been reiterated in the counter-affidavit. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. M. Abdul Nazeer, petitioner's learned Counsel, graphically described before us the case of the petitioner narrated in his affidavit and reply affidavit and emphasised that the detenus, inclusive of the petitioner, who were apprehend on 30-8-1995, and allegedly arrested on 31-8-1995, were wholly in the custody of the DRI officials till they were handed over to prison authorities after obtaining remand from the concerned Magistrate on the evening of 31-8-1995. He pointed out that the petitioner and other detenus had apparently sustained injuries found on them when they were in the custody of DRI officials, for, in the Central Prison, Madras, when they were examined physically, injuries were noticed on all of them, which were entered in the jail registers, before they were sent for treatment to the prison doctor. He pointed out, that custody of all the three of them by DRI officials from 30-8-1995 till handing over to prison authorities, stands admitted and if that be so, the DRI officials were bound to account for the injuries found on them. Of course, he attacked the confession statements as being the outcome of torture and coercion. He contended that every one of the prayers made by the petitioner, deserved to be upheld. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Mr. P. Rajamanickam, learned Counsel representing the first respondent referred to several paragraphs of the counter-affidavit and submitted, that the whole claim of the petitioner that he and two other were injured while in custody, must be held to be false, since the telling circumstance of bleeding through mouth by the petitioner could not have escaped the attention of the learned Magistrate when they were produced for remand before him. He submitted that the petitioner and two others, in conjunction with others, have committed very serious offences and with a view to escape from the clutches of law, they have trotted out a case of torture, so that it could be used as the main plank of defence at a later stage. However, when questioned by the Court, he admitted that commencing from the time of apprehension on 30-8-1995, till they were produced before the prison authorities, all the three of them were in the custody of the DRI officials. He added that DRI officials Ganabalan and Balakrishnan were the persons who escorted the petitioner and the other detenus to the learned Magistrate and later to the jail premises. He submitted that the DRI officials have already taken expert medical opinion and they will be able to disprove, at the appropriate time, that these persons could not have sustained the injuries noticed by prison authorities and the Medical Officers at Government General Hospital, Madras, at the time and in the manner alleged. He then argued, that if the case of the petitioner were to be accepted at this stage, the entire prosecution initiated against the petitioner, the other two detenus as well as their associates, will stand adversely affected. He did urge, that the confessions recorded from these persons, would, of course, be the main plank of the prosecution. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Since the petitioner has made specific allegations in his affidavit that the jail authorities had noticed injuries on all the three of them, soon after production at the Central Prison, Madras, we deemed it necessary to call for the remand admission book relating to 31-8-1995 from Central Prison, Madras. We also directed production of the admission book at Central Prison, Madras, relating to the date, with which we are now concerned. Mr. B. Sriramulu, learned Public Prosecutor, obtained the same from the prison authorities and placed them for our scrutiny. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The New Remand Admission Book relates to the period commencing from 18-6-1995 and ending with 10-9-1995. We are satisfied prima facie that this Remand Admission Book has been maintained in the regular course of business. This admission book shows that no production by K. Balakrishnan and Gunabalan, I.O., DRI, Madras, Refiudeen (89296) was received at the Central Prison on 31-8-1995. At that point of time, a contusion on the upper lip of Rafiudeen was noticed. He has also swelling due to beating on his left hand and right shoulder. Meenakshisundaram alias Sundaram, who was received in prison along with Refiudeen had swelling due to beating on his left shoulder and he had similar swellings on his feet. His serial number is 89297. Sethuraman alias Sethu was also received in prison along with the other two, on production by the officials mentioned earlier and his serial number is 89298. No mention has been made in this admission book of any injuries noticed on Sethuraman alias Sethu. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The Admission Book commencing from 27-8-1995, at page 37 shows that at 9-15 p.m. on 31-8-1995, on the orders from the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Madras, through DRI, T. Nagar, Gunabalan and Balakrishnan, I.O. and Sepoy Janakaraj, these three persons serially number as 89296 to 89398 were admitted in Central Prison, Madras. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Mr. P. Rajamanickam, first respondent's learned Counsel, requested our permission to peruse the prison registers and we acceded to his request. After perusing the registers, he commented that the signatures of Gunabalan and Balaksrishnan have not been obtained in the registers. When we questioned Mr. Rajamanickam as to why he was pointing out non-obtaining of signatures, he contended that in certain cases, signatures, have been obtained from those who had produced the remand prisoners and the same was conspicuously absent in this instance. However, he did not dispute that Gunabalan and Balakrishnan, officials of DRI, had produced these three persons before the prison authorities, after continuous custody with them from the afternoon of 30-8-1995. He pleaded for dismissal of this Habeas Corpus Petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Mr. B. Sriramala, learned Public Prosecutor, representing the second respondent submitted, that these two registers produced by the second respondent, on our directions, clearly show, that they have been maintained in the regular course of business. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. We have narrated all the facts brought to our notice by counsel, three in number. Of course, as rightly contended by Mr. P. Rajamanickam, after respondent's learned Counsel, the offences alleged against the petitioner and two other detenus, are of a serious nature and the prosecution against them will have to be allowed to reach its logical termination. At the same time, Courts, cannot close their eyes to alleged custodial violence, for it can be termed as one of the worst crimes in a civilised society governed by the rule of law. Quite often, the Supreme Court has observed that convicts, prisoners or undertrials are not denuded of their fundamental rights under Article 21 and it is only such restrictions, as are permitted by law, which can be imposed on the enjoyment of the fundamental right by such persons. It is an obligation of the State of ensure that there is no infringement of the indefeasible rights of a citizen of life, except in accordance with proceeding established by law, while the citizen is in its custody, whether he be a suspect undertrial or convict. The duty of care on the part of the State is strict and admits of no exception. The wrongdoer is accountable and the State is responsible if the person in custody of the police stood deprived of his life, except according to the procedure established by law. Again, the Supreme Court has consistently held that while granting relief to a victim for infraction and invasion of his rights guaranteed under Article 21, it is not always enough to relegate him to the ordinary remedy of a civil suit to claim damages for the tortious act of the State, as that remedy in private law indeed is available to the aggrieved party. The Courts have the obligation to satisfy the social aspirations of the citizens, because the Courts and the law are for the people and expected to respond to their aspirations. The primary source of the public law proceedings stems from the prerogative writs and the Courts have therefore, to evolve 'new tools' to give relief in public law by moulding it according to the situation with a view to preserve and protect the rule of law. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. It is also evident from the pronouncements of the Supreme Court that the Supreme Court and the High Courts, being the protectors of the civil liberties of the citizen, have not only the power and jurisdiction, but also an obligation to grant relief in exercising of their jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 to a victim, whose fundamental rights under Article 21 are established to have been flagrantly infringed by calling upon the State to repair the damage done by its officers to the fundamental rights of the citizen, notwithstanding the right of the citizen to the remedy, by way of a civil suit or criminal proceedings. The State of course, has the right to be indemnified, by taking such action as may be available to it, against a wrongdoer in accordance with law through appropriate proceedings. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. A variety of decided cases have been placed before us, wherein either the Supreme Court or the High Courts have awarded compensation for custodial deaths or violence inflicted on victims, while they were in custody. But, almost in all such cases, the prosecution initiated by the State against those in custody had either abated or stood terminated, while, of course, the prosecution against those erring officials who were responsible for infliction of violence on persons while in their custody, were either pending or had a base of report submitted on enquiry, or were directed to be instituted after investigation. Here is a case where serious offences, which would affect the economy of the country, are alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and other detenus and their associates. Of course, these three detenus have enough opportunity to defend themselves and put forth their innocence before the trial Court. Equally, it will be possible for the prosecuting agency, on the basis of the evidence to be placed before the trial Court, to demand a conviction. That exercise is always open to both parties and that may not have to detain as generally in Habeas Corpus Petitions of this nature. However, parties on either side affirm that the main foundation for the prosecution case, is the confession statements allegedly made by these three persons - described as voluntary by the first respondent and condemned as outcome of extortion by the petitioner and others. If such confessions were voluntary or otherwise, may have again to attract the attention of the learned trial Judge. It will be relevant at this stage to refer to the observations of Ratnavel Pandian, J., as he then was, speaking on behalf of the Full Bench, in Roshan Beevi v. Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Public Dept., 1983 Mad LW (Cri) 289 : 1984 Cri LJ 134). The observations read as hereunder (at p. 153 of Cri LJ) : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'If, in a given case, the Customs Officials detains any person required or summoned under the provisions of the Customs Act for a prolonged period, even exceeding twenty-four hours, or keeps him in closed doors and a captive prisoner surrounded by officials or locks him in a room or confines him to an office premises, he does so at his peril, because Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act do not authorise the Officer belonging to the Customs Department to detain a person for a prolonged custody and deprive him of the elementary facilities and privileges to which he is entitled. In such a situation, the officer must be held to have over-stepped his limits, and any confessional statement obtained from such a person by keeping him a prolonged custody has to be regard with grave suspicion, because there is always room for criticism that such a confession might have been obtained from extorted mal-treatment or induced by improper means. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Nathu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, : 1956CriLJ152 , the prolonged custody may stamp the confessional statement so obtained as involuntary one, and the intrinsic value of such a statement may be vitiated.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is thus evident that the question whether a person stood kept in prolonged custody, or he was inflicted with violence while in such custody, are questions of fact, which have to be carefully considered as against the background of circumstances, disclosed in each case. Naturally, no inflexible standards for universal guidance could be laid down. Since the confession statements of those three persons will be the basic material before the trial Court, on which either party would depend, to secure advantage in their favour, we are of the opinion that at this stage it will not be prudent for us, to offer a definite opinion as to the right of the petitioner and other detenus to claim compensation by invoking our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, irrespective of the rights available to them in the normal civil forum. At the same time, we are bound to mention that, on the basis of submission made by either party, prima facie, it is evident that these three persons who were apprehended on 30-8-1995 were continuously in the custody of DRI officials, till they were handed over at 9.15 p.m. to the prison authorities on the basis of an order of remand passed by the concerned Magistrate at or about 7-15 p.m. on 31-8-1995, when they were produced for remand. If injuries were found on these three persons, soon after handing over of custody by DRI officials to prison authorities, needless to state, that the DRI officials must be held responsible to account for these injuries. It is all the more relevant in this case, since admittedly the DRI officials were holding these three persons in their custody throughout. In fairness, Mr. P. Rajamanickam must have placed before us the contra expert medical opinion allegedly obtained by the DRI officials, to disprove that the petitioner and the other two detenus, could not have sustained injuries found on them in the manner alleged by them. We are totally unimpressed, with the submission made by Mr. P. Rajamanickam, that the learned Magistrate would not have failed to notice the bleeding through mouth, if it had existed, on the petitioner. We cannot overlook the specific case of the petitioner in his affidavit that he was beaten from 30-8-1995 and the statement recorded from him was on the afternoon of 31-8-1995. It is also the specific case of the petitioner that on fisting on his mouth by an officer, blood started oozing. Several hours later, petitioner was produced before the Magistrate and in that backdrop, it will be odd to expect continuous oozing of blood, to be markedly apparent for visualisation by the Magistrate. Irrespective of the truth or otherwise of the case of the petitioner, which will have to be tested, we cannot ignore his case, at this stage, that all the three of them were surrounded by DRI officials when they were taken to the residence of the Magistrate at or about 7-15 p.m. for the purpose of obtaining remand. The situation in which these persons were produced before the Magistrate, cannot be one beyond our comprehension. We must also state that the records produced by the jail authorities, on our summoning them, prima facie show that except Sethuraman, the other two detenus had visible injuries on them, when they were produced inside the jail campus by the DRI officials. We have perused the two books produced by the second respondent and prima facie it appears that they have been maintained in the regular course of business. The entries in the New Remand Admission Book, coupled with the medical reports furnished to us, by the Dean, Government General Hospital, Madras, show that petitioner and Meenakshisundaram alias Sundar had sustained multiple injuries in different parts of their bodies and cane marks were also visible. The Medical Officer further found reddish brown cane mark over the left shin and three marks over the left hand of Sethuraman, who was examined on 9-9-1995. As to what would be the effect of these injuries noticed on Sethuraman, vis-a-vis non-entry of these injuries in the New Remand Admission Book on 31-8-1995, may have to attract the attention of the trial Magistrate, during the process, of the trial proceedings. It will be neither fair, nor just to accede at this stage to the argument of Mr. P. Rajamanickam that Sethuraman must be held to have not sustained injuries while in custody of the DRI officials. If that emphatic stand of Mr. P. Rajamanickam has to be accepted, equally, we have to accept that the other two persons had sustained injuries only because of violence practised on them by the DRI officials. As we have already stated on the peculiar nature of the case placed before us, we are rather inclined to keep this question of compensation open without offering definite findings, for in our opinion, such a procedure would tend, for the furtherance of the case of justice. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. While the issue of compensation can be kept open, to be decided at a later stage and leaving such right open to be invoked by the petitioner and the other two detenus, under Article 226 of the Constitution, at the appropriate time, we have to still decide the effect of the other prayer made by the petitioner seeking, directions for initiation of appropriate legal proceedings against erring officials of the first respondent. We have already expressed court view that prima facie it appears that the DRI officials may have to explain the injuries found on these three persons, since it is admitted that they were in the custody of the DRI officials throughout. Naturally, as a follow-up, to this view of ours, we have to necessarily direct the Commissioner of Police, Madras, to cause registration of crime against the erring DRI officials on the basis of the affidavit of the petitioner and the records referred to by as (Jail records and medical reports) and have it investigated, leading necessarily to filing of a final report in accordance with law. This exercise, the Commissioner of Police, shall do without any delay. In the event of a positive final report being filed, it will be open to both parties to plead for joint trial of the prosecution initiated by the first respondent against the petitioner and the other detenus and the prosecution against the DRI officials at the instance of the State. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. We reiterate that the claim for compensation made by the petitioner and two others in this Habeas Corpus Petition, has not been rejected or foreclosed for the right to seek this remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution stands kept open by us, if the petitioner and the other detenus so choose to invoke our said jurisdiction at the appropriate time, after disposal of the criminal proceedings. This Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of accordingly. This criminal proceedings shall be proceeded with and terminated, without being influenced by any of the observations made herein. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Order accordingly.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1996CriLJ2938',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Madras and Others',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '787510'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

LAW: Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Section 135, the Customs Act, Section 3, the COFEPOSA Act, the Medical Officers at, Article 21, Article 21, Article 21, the Customs Act, the Customs Act, Article 226 of the Constitution, Article 226 of the Constitution, Article 226 of the Constitution

ORG: Rafique, Kajamoideen, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Sethuraman, Magistrate, Dorai, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Srinivasan, Sethuraman, Ramachandra Medical College, Porar, DRI Officers, DRI, Sethuraman, DRI, Magistrate, Magistrate, Magistrate, Magistrate, Magistrate, DRI, Court, Court, Habeas Corpus Petition, Court, Habeas Corpus Petition, Court, This Habeas Corpus Petition, Court, the Dean, Government General Hospital, Registry, the Dean, Government General Hospital, Sethuraman, Government General Hospital, DRI, T. Nagar, Abrasion - Mucoosa, Cane, Cane, DRI, ENT, Sethuraman, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation, Magistrate, Magistrate, DRI, Magistrate, DRI, Magistrate, Court, DRI, Magistrate, Magistrate, DRI, Department, Departmental, Habeas Corpus Petition, Magistrate, DRI, DRI, Government General Hospital, DRI, Magistrate, DRI, DRI, DRI, Counsel, Magistrate, Court, DRI, DRI, Magistrate, DRI, Government General Hospital, Public Prosecutor, The New Remand Admission Book, this Remand Admission Book, I.O., DRI, Sethuraman, Sethuraman, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's, DRI, T. Nagar, DRI, Public Prosecutor, Counsel, the Supreme Court, State, State, the Supreme Court, State, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, the High Courts, State, the Supreme Court, the High Courts, State, Court, Court, Habeas Corpus Petitions, Ratnavel Pandian, Customs, the Customs Department, the Supreme Court, Uttar Pradesh, Court, DRI, Magistrate, DRI, DRI, DRI, DRI, Magistrate, Magistrate, Magistrate, DRI, Magistrate, Magistrate, DRI, the New Remand Admission Book, the Dean, Government General Hospital, Sethuraman, the New Remand Admission Book, Magistrate, Sethuraman, DRI, DRI, DRI, DRI, DRI, the Commissioner of Police, DRI, State, This Habeas Corpus Petition

PERSON: Habeas Corpus, Madras, Menakshisundaram, Setharaman, Madras, T. Nagar, Madras, Egnore, Madras, Dorai, Dorai, T. Nagar, Madras, Majid Bai, Madras, Madras, Madras, Refiudeen, X-Ray, Meenakshisundaram, elbow, X-Ray, Detenu Sethuraman, C. Rajendran, T. Nagar, Habeas Corpus, Sethuraman, Madras, M. Abdul Nazeer, Madras, P. Rajamanickam, Ganabalan, Madras, Madras, Madras, Madras, B. Sriramulu, K. Balakrishnan, Gunabalan, Madras, Refiudeen, Sundaram, Refiudeen, Madras, Gunabalan, I.O., Sepoy Janakaraj, P. Rajamanickam, Gunabalan, Rajamanickam, Gunabalan, B. Sriramala, P. Rajamanickam, J., Roshan Beevi v., Tamil Nadu, Cri LJ, P. Rajamanickam, P. Rajamanickam, Sethuraman, P. Rajamanickam, P. Rajamanickam, Madras

DATE: 7-9-1995, 30-8-1995, a little earlier, 1 1/2 days, 1995, 8-9-1995, 11-9-1995, about 32 years, about 36 years, about 30 years, 11-9-1995, October, 1995, 467, 1992, the next day, the next day, 31-10-1995, 89297, 89298, 1983, 1984, 1956CriLJ152, 31-8-1995

LOC: Central Prison, Central Prison, Sundar, the Central Prison, Madras, Superintendent, Madras, Madras, the Central Prison, the Central Prison, Central Prison, Central Prison, Central Prison, Madras, Govt, Madras

CARDINAL: two, 31-8-1995, about 7-15 p.m., three, one, one, one, two, three, one, one, 31-8-1995, two, 30-8-1995, 31-8-1995, 2., three, 7, three, 3, three, three, 13, three, 30-8-1995, ten, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 1, 11/3, 1/3, 1/3, 2, 3, 4, 1/3, 5, 6, 30-8-95, 5, two, 6, two, 31-8-1995, 2, 471, 420, 30-8-1995, three, 30-8-1995, three, 31-8-1995, 30-8-1985, 8, 30-8-1995, 31-8-1995, 31-8-1995, three, 30-8-1995, 9, two, two, 30-8-1995, three, two, 10, three, 31-8-1995, 11, 18-6-1995, 31-8-1995, two, 12, 27-8-1995, 37, 31-8-1995, three, 89296 to 89398, 13, three, 30-8-1995, 14, two, 15, three, two, 16, 226, 17, three, three, 289, 153, 107, 108, three, three, 30-8-1995, about 7-15 p.m., 31-8-1995, three, three, two, 30-8-1995, three, about 7-15 p.m., two, two, two, 18, two, three, 19, two, 20

PRODUCT: Sundar, Meenakshisundaram, Sundar, Sundar, Meenakshisundaram, Rafiudeen, Meenakshisundaram, Rafiudeen, Sethu, the Full Bench, Cri LJ 134, Meenakshisundaram, Sundar

GPE: R.R., E.O.I., Ibrahim, Malena, Counsel, Balakrishnan, Sethu, Balakrishnan, Counsel, Balaksrishnan, Balakrishnan, Sethuraman

TIME: about 12.30 noon, late in the evening, 7-00 p.m., 9-9-1995, the evening, 2-00 p.m., 7-15 p.m., the evening, 9-15 p.m., the afternoon, twenty-four hours, 9.15 p.m., the afternoon, Several hours later, 9-9-1995

FAC: Angappa Naicken Street, Madras Harbour, the Central Prison

ORDINAL: third, first, third, first, 9th, first, first, second, first, third, first, first, first, second, second, first, second, first, first

EVENT: H.C.M.P. No

WORK_OF_ART: Superintendent of Central Prison

QUANTITY: 0.5 cm, 10 cm, 4 x 1 cm, 10 cm, 10 x 7 cm, 3 x 2 cm, 10 x 2 cm, 10 x 1 cm, 3 cm, 10-9-1995

MONEY: three marks, three marks

NORP: Nathu v. State, contra