- (1.) THESE criminal original petitions and criminal miscellaneous petitions are disposed of together by a common order since they relate to the same case though two of the accused involved in the crime are different. In Crl. O. P. No. 13738 of 1992, preferred by the State represented by the Inspector of Police, CBI/scb, Madras, the prayer is to cancel bail in the event of arrest granted in favour of respondent K. Srinivasan by the Principal sessions Judge, Madras by his order dated 29. 9. 1992 made in Crl. M. P. No. 4656 of 1992 Criminal O. P. No. 13739of 1992 is a similar petition filed by the same inspector of Police to cancel bail in the event of arrest ordered in favour of accused S. Balasubramaniam by the Principal Sessions Judge, Madras, by his order dated 1. 10. 1992 made in Crl. M. P. No. 4705 of 1992.
(2.) CRL. O. P. No. 13310 of 1992 is again a petition by the same Inspector of Police to set aside that portion of the order made by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madras in CRL. M. P. No. 4705 of 1992 directing the respondent/accused S. Balasubramaniam to appear for interrogation along with his counsel. CRL. M. P. No. 7117of l992 is yet another petition filed by the same inspector of Police for stay of operation of the order in CRL. M. P. No. 4705 of 1992 passed by the court of Sessions in favour of, respondent s. Balasubramaniam, pending disposal of CRL. O. P. No. 13310 of 1992. Crl. M. P. No. 7553 of 1992 is a petition by accused balasubramaniam for modification of the ex parte order made by this Court in crl. . M. P. No. 7117 of 1992 deleting the word in the order of the learned Sessions judge, made in Crl. M. P. No. 4705 of 1992. Facts in brief will have to be stated for the disposal of all these petitions. On the complaint of the Additional Collector of customs, Madras, a case against S. Balasubramaniam, K. Srinivasan (both concerned in these petitions) and four others under Secs. l20-B read with 420,420,465,468 and 471 read with 468, Indian Penal Code was registered under r. C. No. l2 (s)/92, under the orders of Superintendent of Police, CBI/scb, Madras. Preliminary investigation revealed that the respondents in these petitions and 5 others had entered into a Criminal conspiracy to forge endorsements as though shipping bills were purportedly made by customs officials at various levels, and further had made use of those documents for exporting three consignments through Madras Air Cargo Complex to Singapore, for the purpose of illicitly exporting snake skins and narcotics, which are items banned for export. There was further indication that apart from the three consignments referred to above 17 other consignments had also been exported through Madras Air Cargo Complex to Malaysia , during January to December, 1991, by these accused, in respect of which shipping bills were in the process of being traced. The efforts of the Investigating officer to contact the respondents involved in these petitions to interrogate them did not meet with success. While so, after notice to the Investigating agency, learned principal Sessions Judge, Madras in crl. M. P. No. 4705 of 1992 on 1st October, 1992, directed enlargement on bail in the event of arrest of respondent Balasubramaniam on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 5,000 (Rupees five thousand) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the 10th Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras and on further condition that until further orders, respondent Balasubramaniam should report before the investigating officer dairy between 10 a. m. and 1 p. m. for 15 working days for interrogation along with his advocate. It is the case of the investigating officer that till he received a copy of the order, he was not aware that the learned Sessions Judge had permitted the presence of counsel along with respondent Balasubramaniam for interrogation, for the petition filed by Balasubramaniam for anticipatory bail did not contain any such prayer. Further no argument was advanced in his presence by the learned counsel representing Balasubramaniam, pleading for presence of a counsel with him, at the time of interrogation. As far as respondent Srinivasan is concerned, learned principal Sessions Judge, Madras, on 29. 9. 1992, in Crl. M. P. No. 4656 of 1992, directed his release on bail in the event of his arrest on the same terms and conditions under which respondent Balasubramaniam was enlarged on bail except that respondent Srinivasan did not have the benefit of appearing along with his advocate for interrogation. In pursuance of the order of the learned Principal sessions Judge, Madras, respondent Balasubramaniam, appeared before the investigating officer on 12. 10. 1992 along with his counsel. He was not interrogated on that day since he appeared with his counsel. On the two subsequent dates, respondent Balasubramaniam did not appear for interrogation either individually or with his counsel. It was in that context, that on 15. 10. 1992 Investigating Officer moved this Court in Crl. O. P. No. l3310 of 1992, to set aside the order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge made in crl. M. P. No. 4705 of 1992, and also obtained in Crl. M. P. No. 7117 of 1992, stay of operation of that portion of the order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge which permitted presence of an advocate, with respondent Balasubramaniam, for interrogation.
(3.) IT is the case of Investigating Officer that respondent Balasubramaniam and his counsel were intimated over telephone of the order of stay obtained from this Court. However, on 13. 10. 1992 and 16. 10. 1992, investigating officer received telegrams from Abdul Malick and Abdul Nazeer, counsel representing both the respondents as though the respondents had appeared before the Investigating Officer on 13. 10. 1992 along with their advocate, when they were asked to go away without signing and directed to present themselves for interrogation, as and when required in future, by the investigating officer. The second telegram refers to certain telephone calls received from the office of the investigating agency administering threats not to bring their counsel. A written notice was requested by the respondents. As far as respondent Srinivasan is concerned, he appeared for interrogation on 12. 10. 1992 along with his counsel, when he was not interrogated. On two subsequent dates, he did not appear. However, on 13. 10. 1992 Investigating officer received a telegram from Advocate Abdul Malick stating that he had appeared along with his client Srinivasan, who was petitioner in W. P. No. 15503 of 1992, as ordered by the High Court, but only his specimen signatures were obtained and later made to go away with a direction to attend in future whenever required. On 16. 10. 1992 another telegram was received from the counsel similar to the one referred to while narrating the facts with regard to respondent Balasubramaniam. Thereafter Srinivasan also did not appear. While petitions for cancellation of bail in the event of arrest were pending before this Court, on the directions of Padmini jesudurai, J. , respondent Srinivasan claims to have appeared before the investigating officer for 13 days accompanied by his counsel. They include all the working days between 19. 11. 1992 and 7. 12. 1992 respondent Srinivasan so appeared along with his counsel since he had obtained direction, facilitating that course, by filing W. P. No. 15503 of 1992. It is not seriously disputed by the investigating officer, that respondent Srinivasan did appear on those thirteen days. ;