M.V. Muralidaran ORDER
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
1. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 18.9.2017 passed in Crl. M.P. No. 45 of 2017 in S.C. No. 71 of 2017 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri.
2. The petitioner herein has filed Crl. M.P. No. 45 of 2017 under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. praying to discharge him from S.C. No. 71 of 2017 pending on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he is a practising Advocate and he has been impleaded in S.C. No. 71 of 2017 only on the strength of the confession statement given by the first accused, in which, the first accused alleged to have confessed during the police custody on 14.1.2017 that the petitioner handed DVD player, tape recorder, modem and some pamphlets and booklets to him at Madurai Mattuthavani Bus stand for the use of banned CPI (Maoist) party.
4. According to the petitioner, he used to practice before various Courts in Tamil Nadu and in particular, he defended the false cases foisted against innocent persons branding them as Maoist, including the co-accused person in the present case. Only with an ulterior motive to prevent the petitioner from defending the innocent Maoists, he has been falsely implicated in the case on hand. According to the petitioner, the final report failed to attribute and/or make out prima facie case against the petitioner. Hence, he filed the petition under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. to discharge him from S.C. No. 71 of 2017.
5. Resisting the discharge petition, the respondent filed counter stating that the incriminating materials, electronic items, pamphlets seized on the basis of the confession statement of the first accused would clearly reveal the common object and intention of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner was a member of the banned CPI (Maoist) organization. The prosecution has made out a prima facie case against the petitioner. There were no valid grounds to discharge the petitioner and the grounds stated in the discharge petition were untenable and unsustainable in law and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. Upon consideration of the rival submissions, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, dismissed the discharge petition. Assailing the same, the petitioner has filed the present Criminal Revision Case.
7. I heard Mr. R. Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G. Harihara Arun Somasankar, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.
8. Challenging the order of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, in his revision, the petitioner has raised the following grounds:
(1) The petitioner is a practising advocate who defended Maoist accused in Sessions trial and, therefore, with an ulterior motive he was put behind bars nearly for one year.
(2) The confession of co-accused is not admissible as admitted by the trial court.
(3) Having held there is no material against the petitioner that he is a member of gang under Section 20 of the Act and the whole case falls flat on the said ground.
(4) The trial Court having held the alleged materials seized from the first accused were not incriminating in any manner leading to violence or terrorist activities or unlawful activities and there is no evidence showing the involvement of the petitioner in the case, the petitioner ought to have been discharged.
(5) Taking totality of the circumstances, there is no evidence against the petitioner.
9. Resisting the Criminal Revision Case, the respondent has filed the counter stating that even after knowing that co-accused Mahalingam @ Nondi Palani was a........