Madras High Court
D.Gnanadoss vs The State Rep.By on 9 June, 2025
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Crl.R.C.No.546 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.R.C.No.546 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P.No.8175 of 2025
D.Gnanadoss
S/o.T.Dhamodaran (Late)
Proprietor of M/s.Jehovah Jiveh Freight System,
Tuticorin and Resident No. 24/32,
Vishnupuri, 2nd Street, Karthivel Nagar,
Tuticorin – 626 003. ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State rep.by,
The Inspector of Police,
CBI/ACB/Chennai,
RCMAI 2017 A009, Chennai. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401
of Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the order dated 13.12.2024 passed
in Crl.M.P.No.7059/23 in C.C.No. 4 of 2020 by the IX Additional Special
Judge for CBI Cases at Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Balaji for Mr.K.B.Sudarsan
For Respondent : Mr.K.Srinivasan
Special Public Prosecutor
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:37 pm )
Crl.R.C.No.546 of 2025
ORDER
The revision is filed against the order dated 13.12.2024 made in
Crl.M.P. No. 7059 of 2023 in C.C. No. 4 of 2020 by the learned IX Additional
Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai. By the said order, the discharge
application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the trial Court.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that this is
a case where A1 and A2 were intercepted at Chennai Airport on charges of
receiving bribe amounts and bribe articles such as cashew nuts, liquor bottles,
etc., and everything was seized only from them.
4. It is the case of the prosecution that A1 and A2, being higher
officials, were involved with wood imported by various importers, namely
Populus Nigra, which is used in the match industry. The wood had to be
fumigated and free of bark. However, A1 and A2, at the instance of the
importers, directed A4 (who has since been discharged in the case) to release
the consignments without fumigation and also along with bark. Under these
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:37 pm )
circumstances, the group of consignees invited A1 and A2 to Tuticorin and
booked a hotel room for them, where they made a plea to strictly instruct A4
to release all their consignments and also made a representation to the said
accused to remove the said wood from Schedule VI to Schedule VII so that
import with the bark would be made easier. Following the meeting, it is the
case of the prosecution that A1 and A2 insisted on submitting a representation
in that regard and they also carried the copies of the representation and the
bribe amount. On their way back, they were intercepted and caught red-
handed at Chennai Airport.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in this
entire episode, the petitioner, who is in the clearing and forwarding business
at Tuticorin Port, had no involvement. The only allegation made in the final
report is that he cleared the hotel charges. It can be seen that the petitioner's
brother was the one who booked the room. Ultimately, when the persons who
stayed, being the officials, were intercepted and arrested at Chennai Airport,
the hotel owner insisted on payment. The petitioner had no other option than
to pay the charges. That alone cannot be put against the petitioner. Even
assuming that the petitioner paid the charges, none of the offences would be
made out against him. The mere fact that copies of the representations were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:37 pm )
recovered from the petitioner also will not make out any material, as
consignees or traders will always be representing to the Government to
remove the wood to a particular schedule, which would be more convenient
for the traders to import. The mere submission of a representation itself would
not amount to criminal conspiracy.
6. This is a case where there is no material to show that the petitioner
paid any amount to A1 and A2 and it is not the case that A1 and A2 received
the amount on behalf of A7. Since A7 is neither the beneficiary of the bribe
amount nor the payer, no ingredient of the offence under Section 120B or the
offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, including Section 13, is
made out against the petitioner, who is not a public servant. Since A4, who
was similarly situated and had no role to play, was discharged, this petitioner
should also be discharged.
7. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf
of the respondent-complainant took this Court through the counter affidavit
filed, enumerating the various materials collected against this petitioner, who
is arrayed as A7, would submit that there is ample material to proceed further.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:37 pm )
8. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent
would submit that apart from the fact that A7 is the person who cleared the
hotel bill, it can be seen that even before the interception, it was the
petitioner's brother who had made the booking on behalf of the petitioner’s
concerned, who occupied the hotel room. The petitioner cleared the hotel rent
through his cheque. Further, it can be seen that prior to the instant
transactions, as many as 45 consignments belonging to the petitioner's client,
which were imported through the petitioner, were cleared with bark and
without fumigation. All this was allegedly done as part of the conspiracy
between A7 and A1. The relevant excerpts of the telephonic conversations,
etc., are part of the materials placed before the trial Court. Unlike A4, A7 is a
beneficiary in the sense that he is in the business of importing this particular
wood, and the misconduct of A1 in directing A4 to release the consignment
without fumigation and with bark directly benefited A7. Therefore, he has
rightly been arrayed as an accused. The other available materials, including
the statements of other witnesses who have spoken about A7, are all
mentioned in the counter.
9. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-
complainant, therefore relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:37 pm )
of India in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and Another, (2012) 9 SCC
460, more specifically paragraphs 17 to 19, to contend that at the stage of
framing of charge, even if two views are possible, the view that supports
framing of the charge should be taken, while it would be converse at the time
of considering the final arguments in the case relating to acquittal.
10. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and
perused the material records of the case.
11. In the instant case, it is not the booking of the hotel which is the
sole material on which the petitioner is implicated. The excerpts of various
telephonic conversations that are produced before the trial Court, starting from
page 87 onwards, are also placed on record. It can be seen from pages 92 and
93 of the paper book filed by the petitioner himself that there are various
telephonic conversations between A7 and A1 Manickam, whereby he informs
A1 to clear various his consignments and request him to instruct the
appropriate officer to clear the same.
12. It can be seen that the materials point out that A1 was in
conversation with all the importers who insisted clearance in violation of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:37 pm )
law, and pursuant to these conversations, a meeting was held, and thereafter
A1 and A2 were intercepted while returning with the bribe amount. Therefore,
it is not as if the petitioner is arrayed based on one isolated piece of material.
In the instant case, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel
that A7 is arrayed without any material at all. There are materials against A7
and therefore, the trial Court has rightly considered them and dismissed the
discharge application.
13. Finding no merit, the Criminal Revision stands dismissed. Needless
to state that the other contentions based on merits are kept open for the
petitioner to raise at the time of trial. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed. No costs.
09.06.2025
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
nsl
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
CBI/ACB/Chennai, RCMAI 2017 A009, Chennai.
2. IX Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai
3. The Special Public Prosecutor (CBI), High Court, Madras
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:37 pm )
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
nsl
and
09.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:37 pm )
