<p>A Bench of Justices V S Sirpurkar and Mukundakam Sharma refused to interfere with the Madras High Court judgement which had on April 28, 2009, dismissed the petition with a fine of Rs one lakh on the petitioner E Veluchamy, claiming to be a Congress worker.<br /><br />The petitioner sought release of Nalini, Santhan, Murugan and Arivu on the ground that their conviction was erroneous as the designated court and the Supreme Court did not consider the inquiry and findings of the Justice M C Jain Commission which had recommended further probe into three "crucial aspects" in the conspiracy.<br /><br />According to counsel K Karuppan, the Jain Commission had in its final recommendations submitted on March 7, 1998, sought further investigations into the alleged role of tantrik Chandraswami, the suspected involvement of foreign intelligence agencies like CIA and Mossad, besides the role of 21 other suspects.<br /><br />The petition submitted that on December 2, 1998, the Multi Disciplinary Monitoring Agency (MDMA) under CBI was constituted and it started its probe on the lines recommended by the Jain panel.<br /><br />The argument of the petitioner was that once the Jain panel had commenced the probe, CBI ought to have informed the designated court about the same. Similarly, it was claimed that after the Commission recommended further investigations into the conspiracy angle, CBI should have informed the Supreme Court which was hearing the appeal proceedings.<br />However, it was submitted that the investigating agency withheld the information from the two courts resulting in their conviction.<br /><br />The arguments failed to convince the apex court which granted liberty to the petitioner to withdraw his petition.</p>
<p>A Bench of Justices V S Sirpurkar and Mukundakam Sharma refused to interfere with the Madras High Court judgement which had on April 28, 2009, dismissed the petition with a fine of Rs one lakh on the petitioner E Veluchamy, claiming to be a Congress worker.<br /><br />The petitioner sought release of Nalini, Santhan, Murugan and Arivu on the ground that their conviction was erroneous as the designated court and the Supreme Court did not consider the inquiry and findings of the Justice M C Jain Commission which had recommended further probe into three "crucial aspects" in the conspiracy.<br /><br />According to counsel K Karuppan, the Jain Commission had in its final recommendations submitted on March 7, 1998, sought further investigations into the alleged role of tantrik Chandraswami, the suspected involvement of foreign intelligence agencies like CIA and Mossad, besides the role of 21 other suspects.<br /><br />The petition submitted that on December 2, 1998, the Multi Disciplinary Monitoring Agency (MDMA) under CBI was constituted and it started its probe on the lines recommended by the Jain panel.<br /><br />The argument of the petitioner was that once the Jain panel had commenced the probe, CBI ought to have informed the designated court about the same. Similarly, it was claimed that after the Commission recommended further investigations into the conspiracy angle, CBI should have informed the Supreme Court which was hearing the appeal proceedings.<br />However, it was submitted that the investigating agency withheld the information from the two courts resulting in their conviction.<br /><br />The arguments failed to convince the apex court which granted liberty to the petitioner to withdraw his petition.</p>