✦ Andhra Pradesh High Court · 17 Jun 2004

G.Rajaratnam v. Govt.of Andhra Pradesh

CR No. 42 of 2004S ANANDA REDDY3 min read

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 44. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to the respondents to conduct the Polygraph test on the petitioners in the presence of their advocate. No costs. 17th June, 2004 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //True Copy// SECTION OFFICER To 1The Secretary…

Judgment

Cause title

Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.V.V.L.N.SARMA Counsel for Respondents 1 to 4: GP FOR HOME Counsel for Respondents 5 to 9 : None appeared The Court made the following:

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the action of the respondents in proposing to conduct Polygraph test on the petitioners connection with Crime No.42 of 2004.

2.

According to the petitioners, a complaint was lodged by one Narasimha Raju stating that certain electrical wires were found hanging to their doors and also to their compound wall which apparently according to them, were intended to kill the said complainant Narasimha Raju and his wife Appalanarasamma. Thereupon the crime was registered under Section 307 read with Section 511 of IPC before the Station House Officer, Kalla Police Station. During the investigation, the respondent-authorities proposed to conduct Polygraph test against the petitioners. In fact, the petitioners have expressed their readiness to undergo such test not only in the affidavit but also even before the Police authorities, by giving it in writing. However, their apprehension is that the said test may not be conducted in accordance with the procedure contemplated. Therefore, they sought for a direction that such test is to be conducted in the presence of their counsel.

3.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents disputing and denying the allegations made by the petitioners and it is also contended that the Polygraph test is to be conducted by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, and not by the Police authorities and the petitioners need not apprehend against the police authorities. The learned Government Pleader also contended that in any case, as the petitioners have expressed their willingness to undergo Polygraph test, the respondent-authorities may not have any objection for the presence of their counsel.

4.

Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to the respondents to conduct the Polygraph test on the petitioners in the presence of their advocate. No costs. 17th June, 2004 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //True Copy// SECTION OFFICER To 1The Secretary, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintendent of police, West Godavari District, Eluru. 3 The Inspector of Police, Bhimavaram Rural Circle, Bhimavaram, West Godavari Dist. 4 The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kalla Police Station, Kalla Mandal, West Godavari Dist. 5 Two CCs to Government Pleader for Home, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (OUT) 6 Two CDs.

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Constitution of India — art. 226; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 307, 511.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 17 Jun 2004. The bench was S ANANDA REDDY.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Andhra Pradesh High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. CR No. 42 of 2004). ← Search more judgments