HC rejects plea by pornography accused orthopaedist

Chennai, Mar 16 (UNI) Madras High Court today dismissed a Habeas Corpus Petition (HCP) filed by controversial orthopaedist, Dr Prakash and three others, seeking to quash the proceedings pending before the Fast Track Court and set them at liberty.

A Division Bench comprising Justice P Sathasivam and Justice J A K Sampath Kumar dismissed the HCP filed by Dr Prakash, M Saravanan, Asir alias Asirgunasingh and Vijayan alias Vijayakumar.

The four were arrested in connection with an alleged sex scandal.

They were arrested for offences under section 120-B read with 109 of IPC and section 5 and 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and section 3, 4 and 6 of the Indecent Representive of women (Prohibition) Act and section 67 of Information Technology Act.

The petitioners submitted that the case was foisted against them as Dr Prakash did not accede to the demand of Assistant Commissioner of Police for a bribe of Rs five lakh.

The final report was filed on March 20, 2002 because of which they could not come out on bail. An additional final report was filed on February 18, 2003 to substitute the earlier one, they submitted.

They also submitted that the police had played fraud on the court.

The charge against them was that the complainant, Ganesan, was used by Dr Prakash for having intimate relationship with several young ladies. The illegal activities were videographed and photographed by him. Later, by screening them through internet, he amassed several crores and thereby spoiled the life of many young women.

In its order, the Bench said the allegation relating to filing of the second final report, its maintainablity and substitution with the other one were matters to be considered by the trial court.

From a perusal of various orders passed earlier by the court, it was clear that the trial before the Fast Track Court was being monitored and directions were being issued then and there for early completion of the trial.

Public Prosecutor S Jayakumar submitted that only six more witnesses had to be examined and added that the case could be disposed of even before the extended time limit of April 24, 2006 fixed by the court earlier.

''We are satisfied that the petitioners have not made a prima facie case for quashing the proceedings'', the Bench added and dismissed the HCP.

UNI XR VV PG DB2339