Madras HC Restrains Special Public Prosecutor From Functioning As He Delayed Final Reports & Enabled Accused To Get Default Bail

The Bench of Justice N. Kirubakaran and Justice B. Pugalendhi gave this ordered while taking into account the fact that SPP P. Seetharaman did not file final reports in 43 NDPS/Drugs cases  which enabled the accused in those cases to obtain statutory bails.

The Court said,

"Even after appearing before this Court and giving undertaking before this Court that he will ensure that he will file the final reports within the time, especially, in NDPS cases, final reports were not filed in 43 cases and statutory bails have been obtained by the accused and (they) merrily walked away from the jail."

Restraining him from acting as SPP, the Court said,

"If he continues to act as a Public Prosecutor, definitely it will not be in the interest of public, especially, when the drug addiction is affecting more and many people, especially, young people are becoming addicts to Narcotic drugs."

The matter before the Court

It was alleged that the P. Seetharaman as a Special Public Prosecutor (bail) was in the habit of receiving final reports from the Inspector of Police in time and would not file before the Court, so as to enable the accused to get statutory bail.

It was alleged that for that, he used to adopt the practice for extraneous considerations deliberately.

Matters against him

A case came before the Court wherein under paragraph No.2 of the order, dated 23.09.2019, it was specifically stated that even though, the Inspector of Police gave a final report in time, the third respondent (P. Seetharaman) delayed and kept the final report with him for two full months to enable the accused to get statutory bail.

Subsequently, before the same Single Judge, a petition was filed for cancellation of bail and by order, dated 18.10.2019, the Court directed P. Seetharaman to appear before the Court and extracted an undertaking from him that he would ensure that in all future cases, which are to be entrusted to him, he would file final report within the time, so that, the accused would not go out of statutory bail or default bail.

Further, in another order, his callous attitude was noted by the Court. The Division Bench said that "time and again, this Court summoned him to extract the undertaking that in all future cases, which would be entrusted to him, he would file final report within the time."

The Court listed out 43 Cases, wherein "in which, the third respondent (P. Seetharaman) allowed the accused to get statutory bail, as he failed to file final report within the time."

Court's observations

The Court, in its Order noted,

"It is alleged that the third respondent has amazed wealth by using his position as a Special Public Prosecutor by indulging in malpractices and corrupt acts and letting off the accused in NDPS Act."

Therefore, the Court suo motu impleaded Directorate of Vigilance and Anticorruption, and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police in this matter.

The Court also said,

"It is not known as to whether as per the Rules framed by the Department with regard to the appointment of Public Prosecutors and Law Officers and the directions issued by this Court, have been complied with or not, while appointing the third respondent."

The Court directed 'Directorate of Vigilance and Anticorruption' to conduct an enquiry with regard to P. Seetharaman (SPP) and file a report before the Court with regard to acquiring of wealth after his assumption of office as Public Prosecutor and family members and friends.

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order