Madras High Court
S.Mohan vs State on 25 June, 2025
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Crl.O.P.No.18214 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.O.P.No.18214 of 2025
S.Mohan,
S/o.Sinnu Naidu,
No.14, Thalayari Street,
West Mambalam, Chennai - 600 033. .. Petitioner
Versus
State, by
Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Special Investigation Cell,
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai. .. Respondent
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 407 of Cr.P.C.,/448
of BNSS to withdraw the case in C.C.No.33 of 2011 pending on the file of
the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under the Prevention of
Corruption Act, Chennai and transfer the same to any other competent Court
of law having jurisdiction.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.John Sathyan,
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:31:01 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.18214 of 2025
Senior Counsel,
for Mr.K.Rahul
For Respondent : Mr.S.Udayakumar,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition is filed with a prayer to withdraw the
case in C.C.No.33 of 2011 pending on the file of the learned Special Judge
for Trial of Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai and
transfer the same to any other competent Court of law having jurisdiction.
2. Heard Mr.R.John Sathyan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
and Mr.S.Udayakumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the
respondent.
3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, by pointing out to
certain adjudications in the case, would submit that the orders by itself
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:31:01 pm )
would smack that the Trial Court is proceeding in a biased and pre-
determined manner. The opportunities which had to be given lawfully, were
not given. The Court is not affording fair opportunity to the accused in the
case. Even the application filed under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure was disallowed and immediately, the matter was posted for
arguments and without even affording one opportunity, now the matter
stands posted for judgment tomorrow i.e., on 26.06.2025.
4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would also submit
that in view of repealing of the earlier Code of Criminal Procedure and
coming into force of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as per
Sections 8(7) and 8(8), the Sessions Cases under the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 can only be tried by the Additional Sessions Court and
the jurisdiction of the Trial Court itself now stands ousted. Therefore, when,
in respect of all the other pending cases throughout the State of Tamil Nadu,
the matters are being transferred to the competent Courts, the present Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:31:01 pm )
alone is hurriedly proceeding further with the matter. The learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner would also draw the attention of the Court to the
Office Memorandum, dated 29.05.2025 issued by the Registrar General, in
this regard.
5. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that concerned Court
will be upgraded shortly as there is a proposal to upgrade the said Court also.
When all these things are to happen very shortly, there is no tearing hurry or
necessity for the Trial Court to proceed with the matter hastily that too by
denying an opportunity to the accused.
6. I have considered the said submissions made by the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner and perused the material records of the case.
7. At the outset, with reference to the allegations of bias that is made
against the Presiding Officer, I am of the view that the materials that are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:31:01 pm )
produced and are relied upon are not enough to presume any undue bias on
the part of the Judicial Officer. All that can be seen is that the occurrence is
of the year 2008 and the Calendar Case is of the year 2011. Therefore, the
matter is proceeded further quickly. Already, 17 years have gone by and
therefore, the Trial Court cannot be found fault with merely because it is
proceeding with the matter quickly.
8. As far as the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner relating to the jurisdiction is concerned, as rightly pointed by the
learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent, the Official
Memorandum itself, in paragraph No.3, categorically directs the Courts to
continue to try the cases that are filed upto 30.06.2024 in the respective
units. In view thereof, since, as on date, there is no order of upgrading of the
Court or transferring the matter, there is justification for the Trial Court to
proceed with the case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:31:01 pm )
9. However, in any event, the right to argue is a valuable right and
even though, in this case, it can be contested by the prosecution that the
accused did not avail the opportunity, since still there is scope for giving
such an opportunity as the judgment has not been delivered, I am of the view
that one more opportunity can be granted to the learned Counsel for the
accused to argue the matter. The opportunity provided by this Court will be
the final opportunity and the accused cannot drag on the matter further by
taking advantage of the opportunity. Arguments, if any, of the other accused
can also be heard.
10. Therefore, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered on the
following terms:-
(i) The prayer to withdraw the case in C.C.No.33 of 2011 from the file
of the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under the Prevention of
Corruption Act, Chennai stands negatived;
(ii) However, C.C.No.33 of 2011 is reopened for arguments on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:31:01 pm )
26.06.2025 and the learned Counsel for the accused is given one more
opportunity and they shall argue tomorrow itself i.e., on 26.06.2025 without
fail;
(iii) It is brought to the notice of the Court that the second accused is
in the hospital attending to his wife. If he is not in a position to be present in
the Court tomorrow, his presence can be dispensed with upon filing of a due
application and the arguments can be made by the learned Counsel on
tomorrow i.e., on 26.06.2025.
(iv) The Trial Court is requested to consider the arguments made by
the learned Counsel for the accused and thereafter, consider the matter in
accordance with law.
25.06.2025
Neutral Citation : no
grs
Note:- Issue order copy today (25.06.2025).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:31:01 pm )
To
1. The Special Judge for Trial of Cases
under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Special Investigation Cell,
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:31:01 pm )
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
grs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:31:01 pm )
25.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:31:01 pm )
