Madras High Court
The State Represented By vs P.Senthamizhselvi on 25 April, 2025
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 & 259 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 03.01.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 25.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 and 259 of 2013
The State represented by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption,
Cuddalore District.
(Crime No.7/2004) ...Petitioner in both RCs
Vs.
P.Senthamizhselvi
W/o.M.R.K.Panneerselvam ...Respondent in Crl.R.C.No.258/13
M.R.K.Panneerselvam ...Respondent in Crl.R.C.Nos.259/13
Prayer in both the Revisions: Criminal Revision Cases filed under Section
397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the common order passed
by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore, in Crl.M.P.Nos.1105 &
1/46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/04/2025 04:04:41 pm )
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 & 259 of 2013
1106/2006 , in Spl.C.No.2 of 2006, dated 02.07.2007.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Ravindran, AAG, Assisted by
Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar,
Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)
– in both the RCs
For Respondents : Mr.G.Masilamani, Senior Advocate
for Mr.C.Prakasam in both the RCs
******
COMMON ORDER
Both the criminal revisions have been filed by the State against the
order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore, whereby, both the
respondents were discharged from the case against them in Spl.C.No.2 of
2006. Since both the criminal revisions arise out of the common order
passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, they are disposed of by this
common order.
2 Pursuant to credible information received by the authorities, a
case was registered in Cr.No.7 of 2004 against the respondents for the
offence under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988, (in short 'the PC Act') alleging that Mr.M.R.K.Panneerselvam,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/04/2025 04:04:41 pm )
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 & 259 of 2013
who is A1, while serving as the Minister for Backward Classes Welfare
during the period between 13.05.1996 and 14.05.2001, had acquired and
was in possession of pecuniary resources and properties in his name and in
the name of his family members far beyond to his known source of income
and A2, who is the wife of A1, abetted the first accused to commit the said
offence. After completing investigation, charge sheet was laid and the same
was taken on file in Spl.C.No.2 of 2006. Pending the above case, the
respondents herein filed separate petitions in Crl.M.P.Nos.1105 and 1106 of
2006 under Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge. The learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore, after hearing the respective counsel, by a
common order dated 02.07.2007 allowed both the petitions and discharged
the respondents/A1 & A2.
3 Aggrieved over the order of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, discharging the accused, the State has preferred these criminal
revisions before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/04/2025 04:04:41 pm )
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 & 259 of 2013
4 Learned Additional Advocate General assisted by the learned
Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the petitioner/State would
submit that Mr.M.R.K.Panneerselvam-A1, was a Minister for Backward
Classes Welfare, Government of Tamilnadu, during the period from
13.05.1996 to 14.05.2001. During the said period, he was in possession of
pecuniary resource and properties in his name and his family members'
name far beyond to his known source of income. At the relevant point of
time, A1 was a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC
Act. The available materials viz. the statements recorded from the witnesses
and documents collected during investigation would go to show that there
are legal and consistent evidence to prove that the properties and pecuniary
resources held by the accused had been acquired by illegitimate source.
4.1 The trial Court rightly accepted the fact that the alleged income
tax returns for the financial year 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 were
filed belatedly by the brother of A1's father at a stretch during March, 2002
and the statements recorded from the Auditor, who submitted Income Tax
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/04/2025 04:04:41 pm )
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 & 259 of 2013
Return (in short 'ITR') to the Income Tax authorities proved the same, but
wrongly over estimated the income of A1 from the agricultural land. The
deposit of amounts in the account of A1 has not been properly explained by
the accused when he was examined by the prosecution. The electricity
service connection given to the additional construction put up in the house
stands in the name of the mother of A1 was provided in the name of A1 and
house tax for the same was also levied in the name of A1, which are all
proves that A1 has property in the name of his mother. The deposit made by
A1 in favour of his wife A2 has not been properly explained.
4.2 Despite sufficient opportunity being given to A1 to offer his
explanation on two occasions, he failed to appear before the investigating
officer, citing reasons one after another. However, he has not filed any
explanation and therefore there was no violation of principles of natural
justice. The documents produced under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in toto establish
the existence of prima facie materials to frame charges against the accused.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/04/2025 04:04:41 pm )
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 & 259 of 2013
4.3 A2, who is the wife of A1, has no sufficient source of income
to acquire the assets standing in her name during the check period. The
exchange deed said to have been executed on 29.10.1980 between father of
A1 and one Nagamuthu Padayachi would reveal the fact that the land
belongs to the father of A1 only and not belong to the Hindu Undivided
Family. A2 served as Agent of Life Insurance Corporation only for a short
while and her income also taken into account by the Investigating Officer
before filing of the charge sheet. The learned Magistrate failed to consider
the materials produced by the Investigating Officer and also the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and traversed beyond the scope and
object of Section 239 Cr.P.C. by erroneously passing the order of discharge,
which warrants interference. To support his contentions, the learned
Additional Advocate General has placed reliance on the decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in the following cases.
1. AIR 1971 SCC 520 (P. Sirajuddin Etc vs State Of Madras Etc)
2. AIR 2004 SCC 517 (State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Awadh Kishore
Gupta And Ors)
3. AIR 1999 SCC 2556
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/04/2025 04:04:41 pm )
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 & 259 of 2013
4. 2005 SCC (Crl) 415 (State Of Orissa vs Debendra Nath Padhi)
4.4 The Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the principle that the
trial Court is barred from looking into any material including the documents
produced by the defence available in the report filed by the prosecution
under Section 173 Cr.P.C. at the stage of framing of charges and should not
testify the veracity of the documents, which is pre-mature, prior to trial.
There is no abuse of process of law in filing the case by the petitioner
against the accused. The learned Magistrate has not followed the principles
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Superintendent and
Remembrance of Legal Affairs, West Bengal vs. Anilkumar Bhunja reported
in 1979 SCC (Crl) 1038.
4.5 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Maharashtra vs. Somnath Thapa reported in AIR 1996 SC 1744 held that it
is apparent that at the stage of framing of charges probative value of
materials on records cannot be gone into and the materials brought on
record by the prosecution have to be accepted at that stage. Further in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/04/2025 04:04:41 pm )
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 & 259 of 2013
case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. Narayanan and another reported in 2000
SAR (Crl) 100 (SC) it is held that it appears that the Court went on elaborate
examination of statements recorded during investigation and formed an
opinion after scanning and shaping of the same, which was not warranted
under law. Therefore the learned Magistrate has exceeded his jurisdiction in
ordering discharge of the respondents as if sitting in appeal against order of
conviction.
4.6 Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Madhya Pradesh vs. Mohanlal Soni reported in 2001 MLJ Crl 60 has held
at the stage of framing of charge, the Court has to prima facie consider
whether there is sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. The
Court is not required to appreciate the evidence to conclude whether the
materials produced are sufficient or not to convict the accused and if the
Court is satisfied that prima facie case is made out for proceeding further,
then charges have to be framed. The trial Court failed to consider that the
actual assets possessed in the names of the respondents/accused and the
income derived in their names during the check period were fully and duly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/04/2025 04:04:41 pm )
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 & 259 of 2013
taken into consideration by the Investigating Officer while assessing
proportionality of the assets.
4.7 The trial Court also failed to consider the principles laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nallammal & Ors vs. State of
Tamil Nadu reported in 1999 SAR 804 wherein it is held that legislative
intent is manifest that abettors of all the different offences under Section
13(1)(e) of the PC Act should also be dealt along with the public servant in
the same trial held by the Special Judge.
4.8 Therefore the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate failed to
consider the case of the prosecution and the materials produced along with
the charge sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C., and traversed beyond the scope
and object of Section 239 Cr.P.C. by discharging the accused. Therefore the
order of the learned Magistrate is perverse and is liable to be set aside.
5 Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents would submit that
A1 was former Minister of Backward Classes Welfare during the period
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/04/2025 04:04:41 pm )
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 & 259 of 2013
from 1996-2001 and also Member of Legislative Assembly from 2001 to
2006 and he hails from very affluent family from Muttam Village in
Kattumannar Koil Taluk, Cuddalore District. His father M.R.Krishnamurthi
owned agricultural lands of about 65 Acres and was harvesting 3 crops and
thereby earned huge income through agriculture. A1 is a law Graduate and
he is a only son to his father. During the check period he has not acquired
any property and the case was registered against him and his wife only due
to political motive.
5.1 A2, who is the wife of A1, is a native of Edmanal Village, near
Sirkali and she also hails from very rich agricultural family and also Bus
owner and their marriage took place in the year 1985. At the time of their
marriage and even after the marriage A2 was in possession of huge monies
and sufficient resources. She was also working as an Agent in Life
Insurance Corporation and earned money. Whatever the properties standing
in the name of A2 and also monies are the individual assets, which derived
from individual source of income not from the source of A1. The
Investigating Officer failed to consider the backgrounds of the accused 1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/04/2025 04:04:41 pm )
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 & 259 of 2013
and 2 and also their source of income and laid charge sheet with ulterior
motive.
5.2 The inclusion of assets standing in the name of A2 and also the
mother of A1 as the assets of A1 is illegal. The assets of A2 and the mother
of A1 do not belong to A1 and they have independent source of income.
The methodology adopted by the prosecution to establish the possession of
disproportionate assets by the accused with reference to known source of
income is absolutely erroneous. The clubbing of the properties of other
accused with A1 is absolutely not sustainable. A1 cannot be asked to
explain the source of income of others for the properties standing in their
names, over which, A1 has no claim or control. A1 has nothing to do with
the properties standing in the name of his wife and mother, who are having
independent source of income. The Investigating Officer failed to consider
the same and wrongly clubbed the properties standing in the name of A2
and the mother of A1 with the assets of A1. In the absence of any evidence
showing that the properties standing in the name of A2 and the mother of
A1 have been purchased out of the income of A1, clubbing of assets held by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/04/2025 04:04:41 pm )
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 & 259 of 2013
others with A1 is absolutely erroneous. A2 has acquired properties from
and out of her own resources and A2 has a separate source of income to
acquire properties. She has been unnecessarily dragged on by the
prosecution as if she abetted A1 to amass wealth. Considering the
backgrounds of A1 and A2 and their source of income, assets held by them
are not disproportionate as alleged by the prosecution. Prosecution failed to
consider all these aspects and in order to wreck vengeance of the political
party, a false case was foisted and unfortunately prosecution also carried out
the assignment given by the then Ruling Party. Further a non designated
officer, who is not clothed with the power of authorization shall not
investigate into the matter without prior sanction from an officer not below
the rank of Superintendent of Police and hence in the present case, the
sanction obtained by the prosecution is not valid. Therefore the learned
Magistrate considering the facts and evaluating the materials, rightly
discharged the respondents/accused, which does not call for any
interference of this Court. To support the contentions, the learned Senior
Counsel placed reliance on the decisions following decisions:
1. 2022 (9) SCC 577 (Kanchan Kumar vs. The State of Bihar)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/04/2025 04:04:41 pm )
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 & 259 of 2013
2. (1954) 2 SCC 934 (H.N.Rishbud vs. State of Dehli)
3. 2001 Crl LJ 2695 (H.S.Gotia vs. State)
4. 1999 Cri LJ 1591 (Nallammal and Ors vs. State)
5.3 Further he would submit that the accused have properly filed
income tax returns and duly accounted the assets and liabilities. Even
though the Investigating Officer failed to consider the same, the learned
Magistrate rightly appreciated the materials and also found that there is no
prima facie case against the accused and rightly discharged them and there
is no merit in the revisions and the same are liable to be dismissed.
6 Heard the learned Additional Advocate General assisted by the
learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the petitioner/State
and the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents/accused and perused the
materials available on record.
7 Admittedly in this case, during the relevant point of time, A1
was a public servant and A2 is the wife of A1. On the reliable information,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/04/2025 04:04:41 pm )
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 & 259 of 2013
the Investigating Officer collected materials and formed an opinion that
there were suspected disproportionate assets held by the accused. Hence the
Investigating Officer sent a letter dated 26.10.2004 calling for explanation
from A1 by annexing statements 1 to 4 containing the details of assets,
income and expenditure etc, which was acknowledged by A1 on
28.10.2004. In the said letter A1 was asked to account for the properties and
pecuniary resources standing in his name and the income of his wife A2,
and his mother and children, fixing the last date as 09.11.2004. But A1
failed to offer his explanation within the stipulated time given in the letter
of the investigating officer. Thereafter 20 days period was extended from
10.11.2004 to enable A1 to offer his explanation, but the Investigating
Officer did not receive any explanation from A1 and it is seen that a second
notice was served on A1 on 13.11.2004 seeking his explanation and 15 days
time was given to furnish his explanation, but he did not offer his
explanation even after expiry of the said period. The Investigating Officer,
based on the materials collected during investigation, found A1 was not
able to satisfactorily account for the assets held in his name and in the name
of his family members and came to the conclusion that the assets standing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/04/2025 04:04:41 pm )
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 & 259 of 2013
in the name of A1 and his family members were disproportionate to his
known source of income. However the trial Court has erroneously made an
observation that prosecution has not given sufficient opportunity to the
accused to submit their explanation, which is contrary to the record. Upon
the request of A1, additional period of 20 days was granted from and
second notice was also served, but, A1 did not furnish any explanation.
These facts clearly demonstrate that the accused was granted ample
opportunity to submit his version, which he failed to avail. The observation
of the trial Court, therefore, is factually incorrect and legally unsustainable.
8 Further, if at all, the property belongs to Hindu Undivided
Family and A1 and A2 are belongs to wealthy family and yielding income
through agriculture and wife of A1 also had independent source of income,
it should have been disclosed by A1 while he was provided considerable
time by the Investigating Officer and A1 should have satisfactorily
accounted the assets and the pecuniary resources by offering his
explanation, but he failed to utilise the opportunity and therefore it is clear
that the defence taken by the accused is only an afterthought and only for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/04/2025 04:04:41 pm )
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 & 259 of 2013
the purpose of this case.
9 It is settled proposition of law that at the time of framing
charges, the Court has to see the final report filed by the prosecution and the
materials viz. statement of witnesses and also documents collected by the
prosecution during investigation and if the same prima facie reveals that
there is sufficient materials to proceed with the case further and the Court
has to frame charges against the accused. Further at the time of framing
charges, the Court has to look into the materials produced by the
prosecution and not the defence taken by the accused or the documents
relied upon by the accused. Further the Court cannot go into probative value
of the materials produced by the prosecution and validity and veracity of the
same cannot be examined at the stage of framing charges, which can only
be done during trial.
10 At this juncture, it would be useful to refer the judgement of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Superintendent and
Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/04/2025 04:04:41 pm )
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 & 259 of 2013
Ors reported in (1979) 4 SCC 274, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held as follows:
“18.It may be remembered that the case was at the stage
of framing charges; the prosecution evidence had not yet
commenced. The Magistrate had, therefore, to consider the
above question on a general consideration of the materials
placed before him by the investigating police officer. At this
stage, as was pointed out by this Court in State of
Bihar v. Ramesh Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 39 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 533 :
AIR 1977 SC 2018] the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence
which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be
meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and judgment
which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty
or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of Section
227 or 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. At this
stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials
before the Magistrate, which leads him to form a presumptive
opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting
the offence alleged, may justify the framing of charge against the
accused in respect of the commission of that offence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/04/2025 04:04:41 pm )
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 & 259 of 2013
11 The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Karnataka
vs. M.R.Hiremath reported in (2019) 7 SCC 515, held as follows:
25. The High Court ought to have been cognizant of the
fact that the trial court was dealing with an application for
discharge under the provisions of Section 239 CrPC. The
parameters which govern the exercise of this jurisdiction have
found expression in several decisions of this Court. It is a settled
principle of law that at the stage of considering an application
for discharge the court must proceed on the assumption that the
material which has been brought on the record by the
prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order to
determine whether the facts emerging from the material, taken on
its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary
to constitute the offence. In State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan [State
of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709 : (2014) 3 SCC
(Cri) 529 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 721] , adverting to the earlier
decisions on the subject, this Court held : (SCC pp. 721-22, para
29)
“29. … At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be
gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter
and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. In
our opinion, what needs to be considered is whether there is a
ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/04/2025 04:04:41 pm )
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 & 259 of 2013
not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made
out. To put it differently, if the court thinks that the accused might
have committed the offence on the basis of the materials on
record on its probative value, it can frame the charge; though for
conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion that the
accused has committed the offence. The law does not permit a
mini trial at this stage.”
12 Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State (NCT of
Delhi) Vs. Shiv Charan Bansal And Others reported in (2020) 2 SCC 290
held as follows :
'' Findings and analysis
38. At the stage of framing charges under Section 227 and
Section 228 Cr.P.C, the Court is required to consider whether
there was sufficient material on record to frame charges against
Shiv Charan Bansal, Shailendra Singh, Lalit Mann and Rajbir
Singh. The prosecution alleged that the offences under Section 120-
B, Section 302 read with Sections 120-B/34, Section 201 IPC and
Section 25 of the Arms Act ought to have been framed.
I. Scope of Section 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C.
39. The Court while considering the question of framing
charges under Section 227 Cr.P.C has the power to sift and weigh
the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a
prima facie case has been made out against the accused. The test to
determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each
case. If the material placed before the court discloses grave
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/04/2025 04:04:41 pm )
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 & 259 of 2013
suspicion against the accused, which has not been properly
explained, the court will be fully justified in framing charges and
proceeding with the trial. The probative value of the evidence
brought on record cannot be gone into at the stage of framing
charges. The Court is required to evaluate the material and
documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging
therefrom taken at their face value disclose the ingredients
constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, there cannot be a
roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter, the evidence is
not to be weighed as if a trial is being conducted. Reliance is
placed on the Judgment of this Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh
Singh1 where it has been held that at the stage of framing charges
under Sections 227 or 228 Cr.P.C., if there is a strong suspicion
which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming
that the accused had committed the offence, then the Court should
proceed with the trial.
40. In a recent Judgment delivered in Dipakbhai
Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat and Another decided on
24.04.2019, this Court has laid down the law relating to framing of
charges and discharge, and held that all that is required is that the
court must be satisfied with the material available, that a case is
made out for the accused to stand trial. A strong suspicion is
sufficient for framing charges, which must be founded on some
material. The material must be such which can be translated into
evidence at the stage of trial. The veracity and effect of the evidence
which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously
judged at this stage, nor is any weight to be attached to the
probable defence of the accused at the stage of framing charges.
The court is not to consider whether there is sufficient ground for
conviction of the accused, or whether the trial is sure to end in the
conviction.''
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/04/2025 04:04:41 pm )
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 & 259 of 2013
13 Therefore at the stage of framing of charges, the truth, veracity
and effect of the evidence produced by the prosecution need not be
meticulously judged. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ought to have
given an opportunity to the prosecution to let in evidence during trial to
prove its version and substantiate the materials collected during
investigation.
14 Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of
Madhya Pradesh vs. Mohanlal Soni reported in (2000) 6 SCC 338,
reiterating the above, held that at the stage of framing charges, the Court
has to consider whether prima facie there is sufficient materials for
proceeding against the accused and the court is not required to appreciate
evidence to conclude whether the materials produced by the prosecution are
sufficient or not for convicting the accused. In the present case, it is seen
that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, discharged the accused by
elaborately discussing the income of the accused and found that there is
nothing disproportionate to the known source of the accused as alleged by
the prosecution, which is not permissible under law. If the court is satisfied
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/04/2025 04:04:41 pm )
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 & 259 of 2013
that prima facie materials are available for proceeding further then charge
has to be framed against the accused.
15 Yet another contention of the learned Senior Counsel is that
the prosecution’s methodology in establishing disproportionate assets is
flawed. The clubbing of properties belonging to others, such as A2 and
A1’s mother, with A1’s assets is unsustainable. A1 cannot be held
responsible for properties in the names of individuals over whom he has no
claim or control, especially when these properties were acquired from their
independent income. The Investigating Officer wrongly linked these assets
to A1 without any evidence to the extent that they were purchased with his
income. The Trial Court held that the prosecution, only to boost the
expenses and to add the value of disproportionate income, clubbed the
assets of A2 and mother of A1 along with assets of A1. In this context, it is
pertinent to refer to the meaning of the expression "known sources of
income," as explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of C.S.D.
Swami v. State [AIR 1960 SC 7], wherein it has been observed as follows:
" Now, the expression 'known sources of income' must have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/04/2025 04:04:41 pm )
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 & 259 of 2013
reference to sources known to the prosecution on a thorough
investigation of the case. It was not, and it could not be,
contended that 'known sources of income' means sources known
to the accused. The prosecution cannot, in the very nature of
things, be expected to know the affairs of an accused person.
Those will be matters 'specially within the knowledge' of the
accused, within the meaning of Section 106 of the Evidence Act."
16 Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a recent judgment in
the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. R.Soundirarasu [2023 (6) SCC 768],
reiterated the aforesaid principle and held as follows:
"While the expression ‘known sources of income’ refers to
the sources known to the prosecution, the expression ‘for which
the public servant cannot satisfactorily account’ refers to the
onus or burden on the accused to satisfactorily explain and
account for the assets found to be possessed by the public
servant. This burden lies on the accused, as the said facts are
within his special knowledge. Section 106 of the Evidence Act
applies. The Explanation to Section 13(1)(e) is a procedural
provision which seeks to define the expression ‘known sources of
income’ as sources known to the prosecution and not to the
accused."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/04/2025 04:04:41 pm )
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 & 259 of 2013
17 In the present case, admittedly, the first accused was issued a
notice dated 26.10.2004, affording him an opportunity to offer his
explanation. In response, the first accused sought extension of time,
however, he failed to furnish any explanation thereafter. Whether the
properties in question were acquired from the income of the first accused or
are the independent properties of the respondents is also an issue that can be
determined only upon full appreciation of evidence during trial and not at
the stage of deciding petition seeking discharge.
18 As far as the defence of filing of income tax return is
concerned, it is useful to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. N.Suresh Rajan and Ors reported in
(2014) 11 SCC 709, wherein it is held as follows:
“The property in the name of an income tax assessee itself
cannot be a ground to hold that it actually belongs to such an
assessee. In case this proposition is accepted, in our opinion, it will
lead to disastrous consequences. It will give opportunity to the
corrupt public servants to amass property in the name of known
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/04/2025 04:04:41 pm )
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 & 259 of 2013
persons, pay income tax on their behalf and then be out from the
mischief of law.”
19 In view of the above decision made by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, in the present case, merely the accused has filed income tax return
that too subsequent to registration of FIR and for three years at a stretch,
they cannot be allowed to escape from the clutches of law unless the same is
proved with sufficient materials in the manner known to law. Further the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of State of Karnataka Vs.
J.Jayalalitha reported in (2017) 6 SCC 263 has held as follows:
“190. The decision is to convey that though the IT returns and
the orders passed in the IT proceedings in the instant case recorded
the income of the accused concerned as disclosed in their returns, in
view of the charge levelled against them, such returns and the orders
in the IT proceedings would not by themselves establish that such
income had been from lawful source as contemplated in the
Explanation to Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, 1988 and that
independent evidence would be required to account for the same.
191. Though considerable exchanges had been made in course
of the arguments, centring around Section 43 of the Evidence Act,
1872, we are of the comprehension that those need not be expatiated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/04/2025 04:04:41 pm )
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 & 259 of 2013
in details. Suffice it to state that even assuming that the income tax
returns, the proceedings in connection therewith and the decisions
rendered therein are relevant and admissible in evidence as well,
nothing as such, turns thereon definitively as those do not furnish
any guarantee or authentication of the lawfulness of the source(s) of
income, the pith of the charge levelled against the respondents. It is
the plea of the defence that the income tax returns and orders, while
proved by the accused persons had not been objected to by the
prosecution and further it (prosecution) as well had called in
evidence the income tax returns/orders and thus, it cannot object to
the admissibility of the records produced by the defence. To
reiterate, even if such returns and orders are admissible, the
probative value would depend on the nature of the information
furnished, the findings recorded in the orders and having a bearing
on the charge levelled. In any view of the matter, however, such
returns and orders would not ipso facto either conclusively prove or
disprove the charge and can at best be pieces of evidence which have
to be evaluated along with the other materials on record. Noticeably,
none of the respondents has been examined on oath in the case in
hand. Further, the income tax returns relied upon by the defence as
well as the orders passed in the proceedings pertaining thereto have
been filed/passed after the charge-sheet had been submitted.
Significantly, there is a charge of conspiracy and abetment against
the accused persons. In the overall perspective therefore neither the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/04/2025 04:04:41 pm )
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 & 259 of 2013
income tax returns nor the orders passed in the proceedings
relatable thereto, either definitively attest the lawfulness of the
sources of income of the accused persons or are of any avail to them
to satisfactorily account the disproportionateness of their pecuniary
resources and properties as mandated by Section 13(1)(e) of the Act.
192. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Iqbal Singh
Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah [Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi
Marwah, (2005) 4 SCC 370 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1101] in this context
had ruled that there is neither any statutory provision nor any legal
principle that the findings recorded in one proceeding may be
treated as final or binding on the other as both the cases have to be
decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein.
......
196. This Court ruled that the fact that the accused, other than
the two Ministers, had been assessed to income tax and had paid
income tax could not have been relied upon to discharge the accused
persons in view of the allegation made by the prosecution that there
was no separate income to amass such huge property. It was
underlined that the property in the name of the income tax assessee
itself cannot be a ground to hold that it actually belongs to such an
assessee and that if this proposition was accepted, it would lead to
disastrous consequences. This Court reflected that in such an
eventuality it will give opportunities to the corrupt public servant to
amass property in the name of known person, pay income tax on their
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/04/2025 04:04:41 pm )
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 & 259 of 2013
behalf and then be out from the mischief of law.
20 With regard to other contention of the learned Senior Counsel
pertaining to the political motive, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2004) 1 SCC 691 in the case of State of
M.P. Vs Awadh Kishore Gupta and Ors. and the relevant portion reads as
follows:
“8. Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a case
of this nature is an exception and not the rule. The section does
not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the
inherent power which the Court possessed before the
enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under
which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to
give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of
the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of
justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any
inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent
jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure
can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts,
therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions
of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions
and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/04/2025 04:04:41 pm )
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 & 259 of 2013
which finds expression in the section which merely recognizes
and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts,
whether civil or criminal, possess, in the absence of any
express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such
powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in
the course of administration of justice on the principle quando
lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur id sine quo res
ipsa esse non potest (when the law gives a person anything it
gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising
powers under the section, the Court does not function as a
court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the
section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully
and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the
tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be
exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice
for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of
the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is
made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the
court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of
process of the court to allow any action which would result in
injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the
powers, court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it
finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the
process of court or quashing of these proceedings would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/04/2025 04:04:41 pm )
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 & 259 of 2013
otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is
disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question
of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is
permissible to look into the materials to assess what the
complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out
even if the allegations are accepted in toto.
9. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [AIR 1960 SC 866 : 1960
Cri LJ 1239] this Court summarized some categories of cases
where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the
proceedings:
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against
the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction;
(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or
complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no
legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or
manifestly fails to prove the charge.
10. In dealing with the last case, it is important to bear in mind
the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence
or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with
the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence
which, on appreciation, may or may not support the
accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/04/2025 04:04:41 pm )
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 & 259 of 2013
the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an
enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or
whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would
not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge.
Judicial process, no doubt, should not be an instrument of
oppression or needless harassment. Court should be
circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should
take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration
before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the
hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass
any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an
instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a
prosecution and bring about its sudden death. The scope of
exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code and the
categories of cases where the High Court may exercise its
power under it relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse
of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice were set out in some detail by this Court in State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC
(Cri) 426] . A note of caution was, however, added that the
power should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest
of the rare cases. The illustrative categories indicated by this
Court are as follows : (SCC pp. 378-79, para 102)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/04/2025 04:04:41 pm )
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 & 259 of 2013
“(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report
or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a
cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police
officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of
the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do
not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so
absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/04/2025 04:04:41 pm )
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 & 259 of 2013
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing
efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on
the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge.”
11. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court
under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very
plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise.
Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this
power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should
not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High
Court being the highest court of a State should normally
refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the
entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so, when the
evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court
and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of
magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without
sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/04/2025 04:04:41 pm )
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 & 259 of 2013
laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will
exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the
proceedings at any stage. (See Janata Dal v. H.S.
Chowdhary [(1992) 4 SCC 305 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 36 : AIR
1993 SC 892] and Raghubir Saran (Dr) v. State of Bihar [AIR
1964 SC 1 : (1964) 1 Cri LJ 1] .) It would not be proper for the
High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light
of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction
would be sustainable and on such premises, arrive at a
conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be
erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the
complaint cannot be proceeded with. In proceedings instituted
on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the
proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint
does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or
oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not
constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by
the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same
in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be
meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out
whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The
complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on
consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/04/2025 04:04:41 pm )
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 & 259 of 2013
made on oath of the complainant that the ingredients of the
offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to
show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in
that event there would be no justification for interference by
the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police
station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the
informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material
collected during the investigation and evidence led in the court
which decide the fate of the accused person. The allegations of
mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and
cannot by itself be the basis for quashing the proceedings.
21 Therefore while deciding petition under Section 239 Cr.P.C.
the Court cannot function as a Court of appeal or revision. Further, the
Court, while dealing with the petition seeking discharge, cannot appreciate
the evidence, but can evaluate material and documents on records to the
extent of its prima facie satisfaction about the existence of sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused. The Section should not be an
instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and
bring about its sudden death and the Court has to see whether there exist
prima facie materials to proceed against the accused. The citations referred
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/04/2025 04:04:41 pm )
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 & 259 of 2013
to by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents are not applicable to
the facts of the present case on hand. There is no quarrel with the
proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
decisions referred to by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents.
However, the facts and circumstances of the case on hand is distinguishable
to those cases.
22 As far as the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the
respondents/accused that there is no abetment on the part of A2 and she has
a separate source of income and that the learned Special Judge has also
made an observation that the prosecution has not proved that A2 abetted A1
to amass wealth, which are disproportionate to his known source of income.
However, the allegation of the prosecution against A2 is that she abetted A1
for acquiring the properties which are disproportionate to his known
sources. In the absence of any explanation offered by the public servant,
whether the assets held in the name of A2 are from the individual source or
not has to be decided only after trial and not at this stage and both the
accused have to be tried together. In this regard it is useful to refer the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/04/2025 04:04:41 pm )
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 & 259 of 2013
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "P.Nallammal &
Others-Vs-State of Tamil Nadu" (1999 SAR 804), wherein it is held as
follows:
"Legislative intent is manifest that abettors of all the
difference offences u/s. 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act-1988 should
also be dealt along with the public servant in the same trial held
by the Special Judge".
23 In view of the above principles, the abettors of all the offence
under the PC Act, should be dealt along with the public servant in the same
trial by the Special Judge. Therefore the reason stated by the learned Special
Judge to discharge the accused is not sustainable.
24 As far as the contention regarding the validity of sanction is
concerned, mere defect in sanction would not affect the case of the
prosecution and in this regard it is useful to refer the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2009) 15 SCC 537 in the case of
V.Padmanabham vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors and the
relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
“8. So far as the defect in sanction aspect is concerned,
the circular on which the High Court has placed reliance needs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/04/2025 04:04:41 pm )
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 & 259 of 2013
to be noted. The Circular in question is dated 9-2-1988 the
relevant portion reads as follows:
The Government also decided that before giving approval
of prosecutions, the Principal Secretary, Law and Legal
Department will obtain the advice of department concerned.”
A bare perusal of the paragraph shows that before giving
approval for prosecution, advice of the department concerned
was necessary. The question arises whether the absence of
advice renders the sanction inoperative. Undisputedly the
sanction has been given by the Department of Law and
Legislative Affairs. The State Government had granted approval
of the prosecution. As noted above, the sanction was granted in
the name of the Governor of the State by the Additional
Secretary, Department of Law and Legislative Affairs. The
advice at the most is an interdepartmental matter.
9. Further, the High Court has failed to consider the
effect of Section 19(3) of the Act. The said provision makes it
clear that no finding, sentence or order passed by a Special
Judge shall be reversed or altered by a court of appeal on the
ground of absence of/or any error, omission or irregularity in
sanction required under sub-section (1) of Section 19 unless in
the opinion of the court a failure of justice has in fact been
occasioned thereby.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/04/2025 04:04:41 pm )
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 & 259 of 2013
10. In the instant case there was not even a whisper or
pleading about any failure of justice. The stage when this
failure is to be established is yet to be reached since the case is
at the stage of framing of charge whether or not failure has in
fact been occasioned was to be determined once the trial
commenced and evidence was led. In this connection the
decisions of this Court in State v. T. Venkatesh Murthy [(2004)
7 SCC 763 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 2140] and in Parkash Singh
Badal v. State of Punjab [(2007) 1 SCC 1 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri)
193] need to be noted. That being so the High Court's view
quashing the proceedings cannot be sustained and the State's
appeal deserves to be allowed which we direct.
11. Coming to the appeal filed by the accused one of the
questions is whether the investigating officer was authorised to
conduct the investigation. The investigation was carried on by
the duly authorised officer, namely, the Deputy Superintendent
of Police under Section 17(c) of the Act. The broader issues
raised need not be looked into. The function of investigation
was merely to collect evidence and any irregularity and
illegality in the course of collection of evidence can hardly be
considered by itself to affect the legality of trial by a competent
court of the offence so investigated.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/04/2025 04:04:41 pm )
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 & 259 of 2013
25 The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the decision reported in (2004)
7 SCC 763 in the case of State by Police Inspector vs. T.Venkatesh Murthy,
further held as follows:
7. A combined reading of sub-sections (3) and (4) makes the
position clear that notwithstanding anything contained in the
Code no finding, sentence and order passed by a Special
Judge shall be reversed or altered by a court in appeal,
confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of, or
any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction required
under sub-section (1), unless in the opinion of that court a
failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby.
8. Clause (b) of sub-section (3) is also relevant. It shows that
no court shall stay the proceedings under the Act on the
ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction
granted by the authority, unless it is satisfied that such error,
omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice.
9. Sub-section (4) postulates that in determining under sub-
section (3) whether the absence of, or any error, omission or
irregularity in the sanction has occasioned or resulted in a
failure of justice, the court shall have regard to the fact
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/04/2025 04:04:41 pm )
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 & 259 of 2013
whether the objection could and should have been raised at
any earlier stage in the proceedings.
10. Explanation appended to the section is also of
significance. It provides, that for the purpose of Section 19,
error includes competency of the authority to grant sanction.
26 Yet another decision reported in (2023) 1 SCC 329 in the case
of Vijay Rajmohan vs CBI (Anti Corruption Branch) held as follows:
22. Statutory provisions requiring sanction before
prosecution either under Section 197CrPC or under Section
97 of the PC Act also intend to serve the very same purpose of
protecting a public servant. These protections are not
available to other citizens because of the inherent
vulnerabilities of a public servant and the need to protect
them. However, the said protection is neither a shield against
dereliction of duty nor an absolute immunity against corrupt
practices. The limited immunity or bar is only subject to a
sanction by the appointing authority.
27 The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the recent judgment in the case of
State vs. Easwaran (2025 INSC 397) held that the High Court committed an
error in quashing the prosecution on the grounds that the sanction to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/04/2025 04:04:41 pm )
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 & 259 of 2013
prosecute was illegal and invalid. The Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated
that the validity of a sanction is an issue that must be examined during the
course of trial.
28 The main ground raised by the defence is that the Inspector of
Police, Thiru R. Ambikapathi (L.W.29), collected the relevant documents
during a detailed enquiry between 2002 and March 2004. As per Section 17
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, only a Deputy Superintendent of
Police or an officer of equivalent rank is authorized to investigate offences
under the Act. It is not disputed, as observed in para 66 of the impugned
order, that the investigation was conducted by the DSP, Vigilance and Anti-
Corruption, Cuddalore. However, the 11 documents in question were
collected not by the DSP, but by the said Inspector. Nevertheless, the mere
fact that an Inspector collected the documents does not vitiate the case of
the prosecution, as the DSP is the investigating officer. Whether the
documents were collected by an Inspector or a DSP which is a ground to
quash the proceedings at the stage of framing charges. Since the case is now
at the stage of framing charges, the respondents/accused are free to raise all
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/04/2025 04:04:41 pm )
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 & 259 of 2013
their defences before the trial Court. A challenge on a mere technical
ground at this stage is untenable. Hence, the contention regarding defect in
sanction is rejected, and the judgments relied upon by the learned Senior
Counsel are not applicable to the present case.
29 This Court has carefully gone through the allegations in the
charge sheet, statement of witnesses and the documents, which reveal that
there is prima facie materials to proceed further.
30 Furthermore, prosecution has to be given an opportunity to
prove its case and substantiate the materials collected during investigation.
A reading of the entire materials and also the order passed by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, reveal that the learned trial Judge traversed
beyond the scope of Section 239 Cr.P.C. and this Court finds that there are
prima facie materials to proceed with the case further against the accused.
31 The grounds taken by the respondent/accused are nothing but a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/04/2025 04:04:41 pm )
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 & 259 of 2013
defence, which are all matter for trial. In the present case, finding of the trial
Judge is perverse and there is a compelling reason to interfere with the
order passed by the learned Magistrate.
32 Therefore these revisions are allowed and the common order of
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore, in Crl.M.P.Nos.1105 &
1106/2006 , in Spl.C.No.2 of 2006, dated 02.07.2007, is hereby set aside
and the Special Court now constituted is directed to frame charges against
the accused and proceed with the case further in accordance with law.
Further, since the check period is between 1996 and 2001 and the case is of
the year 2004, the trial Court is directed to conduct trial on day to day basis
and dispose of the matter on merits in accordance with law within a period
of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
25.04.2025
(½)
Neutral Citation : Y es/No
cgi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/04/2025 04:04:41 pm )
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 & 259 of 2013
To
1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore,
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
Copy to: 1) The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court Madras
2) The Section Officer, ER Section, High Court Madras
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/04/2025 04:04:41 pm )
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 & 259 of 2013
P.VELMURUGAN, J.,
cgi
Pre-Delivery Order in
Crl.R.C.Nos.258 and 259 of 2013
25.04.2025
(½)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/04/2025 04:04:41 pm )
