Chennai HC refuses to exempt police commissioner from appearance

Chennai: The Madras High Court today declined to exempt Chennai Police Commissioner S George from appearance before it, saying the report over which he was summoned has been filed without its knowledge.

The bench of Justice S Vaidyanathan directed him to be present in the court on March 27.

The bench had on March 18 asked George to appear before it today for not complying with its August 22 order seeking a status report on the cases pending before the Central Crime Branch up to 2011.

When the matter came up for hearing today, the government counsel requested the judge to dispense with the personal appearance of the police officer, saying the report has already been filed.

The judge, however, refused to take note of the report, saying it was not there in the case bundle when he perused it on Friday last.

The cause list for today, however, showed the report has been filed, he said.
Stating that there were 'blacksheep' within the court itself, the judge directed the registry to ascertain who inserted the report without his knowledge.

The government counsel also submitted that the police had inadvertently filed the report before the first Additional Sessions Court without informing its Chennai's commissioner or the high court.

The officer had no intention to violate the court orders, the counsel pleaded adding he has high regard for the judiciary.

Rejecting the explanation as an 'afterthought' aimed at avoiding the police commissioner's appearance, the judge said, "Such excuses are given for avoidance of the appearance."

He then ordered George to appear in the court on March 27. "Let him appear in court and offer his explanation... Nothing wrong... If he too says the police did not keep him informed (about filing of the report in another court), we will order appropriate action in that regard."

Incidentally, George has been summoned to appear in the high court in another case also.

Justice N Kirubakaran has directed the CoP to appear in the court on March 22 in a contempt petition for failure to provide protection to a petitioner as ordered by the court.