Madras High Court
Mr.N.Manivannan vs State Through The on 9 January, 2021
CRL.R.C.(MD) No.305 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 21.06.2021
PRONOUNCED ON : 20.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
CRL.R.C.(MD) No.305 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.(MD).No.3020 of 2021
Mr.N.Manivannan
S/o. Nagarathinam : Petitioner
Vs.
State through the
Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing,
Virudhunagar.
(Cr.No.7 of 2018) : Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. r/w.
Section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to
the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.13 of 2021 on the file of the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur in Crime No.7 of
2018 on the file of the Respondent Police Station dated 09.01.2021 and set
aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.R.C.(MD) No.305 of 2021
This Criminal Revision has been filed to set aside the order passed in
Crl.M.P.No.13 of 2021 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur.
2. The brief facts relevant to the case are as follows:
2(a). The petitioner herein is arrayed as A4 in Cr.No.7 of 2018 on the file
of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Police of Virudhunagar District under
Sections 120-B, 167, 465, 468, 420, 471, 477-A of IPC and Sections 13 (1) (c)
and (d) r/w. 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w. 109 of IPC.
2(b). It is the case of the prosecution that A-1 Tr.J.Alphones was working
as Municipal Engineer and in-charge Commissioner of Aruppukkottai
Municipality during the period between 23.07.2011 and 02.06.2013 and A-2,
Tr.G.Velmurugan, was working as Inspector of Town Planning, Sivakasi and
worked as the Inspector of Town Planning, Aruppukottai Municipality during
the period between June, 2012 and May, 2015 and as such, both A-1 and A-2
are public servants as defined under Section 2 (c) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. A-3 and A-4 are Private individuals and known persons
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.R.C.(MD) No.305 of 2021
to A-1 and A-2. It is revealed that in the year of 2013, A-3 Tr.N.Sankarram, S/o.
Nagarathinam who was having building in Door No.143, Utchisamy kovil 5 th
Cross Street, Aruppukottai and was running power looms in the said building
which is a residential area. A-4, Tr.Manivannam is the brother of A-3. There
was a dispute with a neighbour in running power looms at the above said
buildings and a representation was filed by the neighbour. Thereafter A-3 and
A-4 sent an application dated 20.05.2013 to the Aruppukkottai Municipality for
additional building constructions.
2(c). It is revealed that on 20.05.2013, A-1 and A-2 conspired with A-3
and A-4 to do an illegal act of preparing a forged and false order permitting A-3
for additional constructions without getting even an application and without
following the procedures established under law and received gratification other
than legal remuneration.
2(d). In pursuance of the above said conspiracy and after receipt of
consideration, A-2 visited the building and prepared necessary endorsement for
approval and collected necessary fee. The owner of the building has to pay
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.R.C.(MD) No.305 of 2021
Labour welfare Fund and hence, a sum of Rs.360/- was fixed as the Labour
Welfare Fund and instead of receiving the said fund from A-3, A-2 prepared the
file in No.122/2013/A, dated 22.05.2013 knowing that the same is incorrect and
which may cause injury and recommended for additional building construction
and even though it is the duty of A-2 to verify whether the Labour Welfare Fund
was paid and instead of verifying the same, he himself made an endorsement as
if a sum of Rs.360/- was paid through a Demand Draft No.205458,
dated21.05.2013, knowing that the said Demand Draft was drawn by one
Tr.Ponnusamy for a sum of Rs.285/- for his application which is under his
dominion and dishonestly misappropriated the same and fraudulently used the
same as genuine with intent to commit fraud intending to cheat the municipality
and to cause wrongful gain to A-3 for pecuniary advantage for himself and for
A-1 and falsified the records in the said municipality.
2(e). In pursuance of the above said conspiracy, A-1 without following
the procedures approved the said order on the very same day on 22.05.2013 for
pecuniary advantages by abusing his position as a public servant and issued an
order in favour of A-3 to run ten power looms knowing that the same was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.R.C.(MD) No.305 of 2021
issued without following the procedures and used the seal of the Aruppukottai
Municipality for their own benefit.
2(f).The aforesaid facts as revealed in the enquiry provide enough
material for suspicion of commission of cognizable offence which requires
registration of a regular case against the above mentioned accused. Hence, the
case was registered against the accused. The charge sheet laid by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti corruption before the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Virudhunagar.
2(g).The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Virudhunagar had taken
cognizance and numbered as Crl.M.P.No.13 of 2021. On perusal of the records,
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had allowed the petition. As against
which, the appellant/accused preferred this revision before this Court.
3. The learned Senior Counsel had fairly conceded one or two rulings are
there against him, but still it is his forcible contention that the Revision
Petitioner is not an accused before the trial Court, which had ordered
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.R.C.(MD) No.305 of 2021
comparison of signature and the issue is no more res integra, protecting his
right. The relevant issue, which is already pending before the bench of this
Court, is regarding the potency test in sexual offences case and in that case, the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also sought time to put forth his
arguments. In support of his contentions, relied on various rulings of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the rulings of the various High Courts, which
are also as against the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the
respondent submitted that after registration of the case, A-3 died. A-4 is the
brother of A-3. He further submitted that the learned trial Judge had directed
the petitioner herein, A-4 to furnish his signature in open Court for the Court to
send the records regarding the disputed signature to the Forensic Department
and get expert's opinion, since A-4 is alleged to have forged the signature of
A-3. Against the order passed by the learned trial Judge, this petition had been
filed.
5. The petitioner herein had already filed Criminal Original Petition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.R.C.(MD) No.305 of 2021
seeking to quash the FIR before this Bench in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.13775 of 2018
and the same was closed on the ground that the investigation had been
completed and charge sheet also laid before the Court of the learned Judicial
Magistrate. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he
was not at all arrested by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department. At this
stage, summons were issued to the petitioner herein to furnish his signature to
enable the Vigilance and Anti corruption Police to complete the investigation to
its logical end. The learned Judicial Magistrate had passed orders in
Crl.M.P.No.13 of 2021 filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance
and Anti Corruption, Virudhunagar. The contention of the learned counsel for
the Revision Petitioner cannot at all be accepted in the light of the ruling of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2019) 8 SCC 1 in the case of Ritesh Sinha
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh.
6. The case was registered in the year 2018. Based on the petition filed
before the learned trial Judge, by the Investigating Officer, summon was sent to
the accused directing to appear before the trial Court and furnish signature in
open Court and also to furnish documents relating to admitted signatures.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.R.C.(MD) No.305 of 2021
Subsequently, after filing of this petition, the petitioner herein had protracted
the proceedings and thereby, delaying the investigation successfully for a period
of two years.
7.Heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and the
learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent.
8.Point for consideration:
Whether the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate
directing the petitioner herein to furnish his signature to enable
the Investigation Officer to proceed with the investigation is to be
set aside as perverse?
9.Perused the following rulings cited by the learned counsel for the
Revision Petitioner:
(i) Amrit Singh -vs- State of Punjab [(2006) 12 SCC 79]
(ii) State of Bombay -vs- Kathi Kalu Oghad [1961 (2) Crl.LJ 856]
(iii) Ritesh Sinha -vs- State of UP [(2013) 2 SCC 357]
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.R.C.(MD) No.305 of 2021
(iv) State of Uttar Pradesh -vs- Ram Babu Misra [(1980) 2 SCC 343]
(v) Ritesh Sinha -vs- State of Uttar Pradesh [(2019) 8 SCC 1]
(vi) Judgment of this Court in Crl. R.C.(MD).Nos.829 and 843 of
2015, dated 15.10.2015.
10.Section 311-A of Cr.P.C. had been introduced by the Parliament on the
recommendation of the Law Commission and the Judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported in (1980) 2 SCC 343 in the case of State of Uttar
Pradesh Vs. Ram Babu Misra, which is in aid of the Investigation Officer just
like the Provision under Section 5 of Identification of Prisoners Act.
11.The learned Judicial Magistrate had allowed the petition only under
Section 311 – A of Cr.P.C., to aid the Investigation Officer to proceed with the
investigation.
12.By allowing this petition, the Revision Petitioner herein has to furnish
his signatures to aid the Investigation Officer regarding admitted signatures and
disputed signatures.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.R.C.(MD) No.305 of 2021
13.By furnishing the signature of the Revision Petitioner, it will not
amount to violation of Article 20 of the Constitution of India. Not only that, in
all the above rulings, it had been specifically stated by furnishing signatures
alone, it will not amount to evidence as to be let in by the witness before the
court. The petitioner herein is not examined as a witness, but he is also
expected to furnish the signatures only after the completion of investigation.
The purpose of furnishing the signatures to the Investigation Officer through
the Court will help the Investigation Officer to proceed with the investigation to
its logical conclusion. If the Revision Petitioner herein is not examined as a
witness, he is unable to furnish his signatures. Therefore, the contention of the
learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner that the order of the learned Judicial
Magistrate directing the Revision Petitioner to furnish his signatures in open
Court to aid the Investigation Officer will be utilized by the Investigation
Officer to incriminate the accused, to implicate the accused in a different case
cannot at all be accepted.
14.The order of the learned Judicial Magistrate directing the Revision
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.R.C.(MD) No.305 of 2021
Petitioner to furnish the signatures to aid the Investigation Officer, under
Section 311-A Cr.P.C., can always be utilized by the accused as a defence if at
all he is implicated as an accused in any other case. For the present, the
investigation would not be hampered and the investigation is to proceed to a
logical conclusion. Therefore if the petition is not allowed the investigation
cannot proceeded to its logical conclusion. In the light of the same, the
contention of the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner is rejected on the
basis of the very same ruling stated on his behalf. The arguments put forth by
the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) relied on the very same ruling in
support of the stand of the prosecution is accepted and the contention of the
learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner is rejected. In the light of the above
discussion, the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate directing the petitioner
herein to furnish his signature to enable the Investigation Officer to proceed
with the investigation is not found perverse. The point for consideration is
answered in favour of the prosecution and against the accused.
In the result, this Criminal Revision is dismissed. The order dated
09.01.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.13 of 2021 by the learned Chief Judicial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.R.C.(MD) No.305 of 2021
Magistrate, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur is confirmed. Consequently,
the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
20.09.2021
Index : Yes / No
dh
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.R.C.(MD) No.305 of 2021
To
1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Virudhunagar District, Srivilliputhur.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing,
Virudhunagar.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.R.C.(MD) No.305 of 2021
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
dh
Pre-delivery Order made in
CRL.R.C.(MD) No.305 of 2021
20.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
