Madras High Court
Anti Corruption Movement vs The State Rep. By on 28 March, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
2025:MHC:831
Crl.O.P.Nos.4368, 4579, 4590 & 4600 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 21.03.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 28.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.Nos.4368, 4579, 4590 & 4600 of 2025
and Crl.M.P.No.2774, 2910, 2914 & 2919 of 2025
Crl.O.P.Nos.4368 & 4600 of 2025:-
Anti Corruption Movement
Rep. by its General Secretary,
No.155, Konnur High Road,
Ayanavaram, Chennai – 600 023. ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State Rep. by
The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
Job Rocket Wing, Vepery,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 007. ... Respondent
Crl.O.P.Nos.4579 & 4590 of 2025:-
Anti Corruption Movement
Rep. by its General Secretary,
No.155, Konnur High Road,
Ayanavaram, Chennai – 600 023. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State Rep. by
The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
Job Rocket Wing, Vepery,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 007.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:05 pm )
Page 1 of 24
Crl.O.P.Nos.4368, 4579, 4590 & 4600 of 2025
2. G. Ganesan
R2 impleaded vide order
dated 28.03.2025 made in
Crl.M.P.Nos.5682 & 5684 of 2025 in
Crl.O.P.Nos.4579 & 4590 of 2025) ... Respondents
Common Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 528 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records
relating to the impugned docket orders, namely, the orders dated
18.09.2024 and 01.10.2024, passed by the learned Additional Special
Court No.1 for trial of cases related to Elected Members of Parliament
and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, Tamil
Nadu respectively in Crl.M.P.Nos.22311, 24674, 24689& 23733 of 2023
respectively in Crime No.441 of 2015 and quash the same.
In Crl.O.P.Nos.4368 & 4600 of 2025:-
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Subramaniyan
For Respondent : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
In Crl.O.P.Nos.4579 & 4590 of 2025:-
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Subramaniyan
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2 : Mr.V.Karthik, Senior Counsel
For Mr.S.M.Nandhie Devhan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:05 pm )
Page 2 of 24
Crl.O.P.Nos.4368, 4579, 4590 & 4600 of 2025
COMMON ORDER
These petitions have been filed challenging the docket orders
dated 18.09.2024 & 01.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional Special
Court No.1 for trial of cases related to MP&MLA Chennai, in
Crl.M.P.Nos.22311, 24674, 24689 & 23733 of 2023 respectively in
Crime No.441 of 2015, thereby clubbed the supplementary final report
with main case in C.C.No.24 of 2021.
2. The petitioner is one and same in all the petitions. The
petitioner is an Association registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies
Registration Act. It is started with common intention to fight against
corruption. The members of the petitioner Association came to know
about the quashing of the criminal case in C.C.No.25 of 2021 pending on
the file of the Special Court dealing with cases of MPs/MLAs, Chennai,
relating to cash-for-scam in making appointments to various posts in the
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation during 2014-2015 as against
V.Senthil Balaji, sitting Minister of Electricity, Prohibition and Excise in
the government of Tamil Nadu, who is arrayed as first accused, by this
Court by an order dated 30.07.2021 in Crl.O.P.No.13374 of 2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:05 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.4368, 4579, 4590 & 4600 of 2025
3. The allegations as against the accused is that the public
servants working in Metropolitan Transport Corporation collected money
from the job aspirants to the tune of several crores along with the
candidates interview cards on the promise of securing job for them at
instance of the Personal Assistant of the first accused. The money was
collected and handed over to the first accused through middle men and on
receipt of the same, the first accused assured them the job. Thereafter, as
the jobs were not given as promised, the victims knocked the door of the
accused as such, he issued cheques for returning the money which
bounced back. Therefore, so many complaints were lodged by the public
servants and middle men who collected money and handed over to the
first accused. After the direction issued by this Court, FIR has been
registered and culminated into trial in C.C.No.19 of 2020 arising out of
Crime No.298 of 2017; C.C.No.22 of 2021 arising out of Crime No.441
of 2015 and C.C.No.25 of 2021 arising out of Crime No.344 of 2018 on
the file of the Special Court designated for MPs/MLAs cases.
4. The FIR in Crime No.441 of 2015 has been registered in
respect of the post of Assistant Engineers, Junior Engineers, Conductors,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:05 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.4368, 4579, 4590 & 4600 of 2025
Drivers and Junior Tradesmen. After completion of investigation, the
respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance
originally in C.C.No.3726 of 2017 and now renumbered as C.C.No.22 of
2021. On the basis of the additional supplementary report, the trial Court
had taken cognizance in C.C.No.24 of 2021 separately. Thereafter, all the
cases were under challenge before this Court by the accused persons,
after the present ruling party came to power in the month of May, 2021.
Therefore, the prosecution was silent and allowed this Court to quash the
entire proceedings in C.C.No.25 of 2021 by an order dated 30.07.2021 in
Crl.O.P.No.13374 of 2021. The accused persons also filed petitions
before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.15122 of 2021 to quash the proceedings
in C.C.No.24 of 2021 and Crl.O.P.No.13914 of 2021 to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.19 of 2020, in which the petitioner filed petition
to implead themselves to oppose the quashment of the entire proceeding.
5. In the meanwhile, the order dated 30.07.2021 passed by this
Court in Crl.O.P.No.13374 of 2021 was challenged before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in Crl.A.No.1514 of 2022 in which, the petitioner
filed petition to implead themselves in the said appeal. The petitioner also
filed appeals before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:05 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.4368, 4579, 4590 & 4600 of 2025
Crl.A.Nos.1515 & 1516 of 2022, challenging the order dated 30.07.2021
in Crl.O.P.No.13374 of 2021. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by an
order dated 08.09.2022 allowed the appeals and also ordered for further
investigation, since the prosecution failed to include the offences under
the Prevention of Corruption Act in the said final report.
6. Insofar as the locus standi of the petitioner herein while
entertaining the appeals filed by the petitioner, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India held as follows :-
"18. We cannot shy away from the fact that
candidates, who are selected and appointed to posts in the
Government/public corporations by adopting corrupt
practices, are eventually called upon to render public
service. It is needless to say that the quality of public
service rendered by such persons will be inversely
proportionate to the corrupt practices adopted by them.
Therefore, the public, who are recipients of these services,
also become victims, though indirectly, because the
consequences of such appointments get reflected sooner or
later in the work performed by the appointees. Hence, to
say that the appellants have no locus standi, is to deny the
existence of what is obvious.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:05 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.4368, 4579, 4590 & 4600 of 2025
Therefore, the petitioner has locus to file petitions challenging the order
passed by the trial Court, thereby clubbing all the supplementary charge
7. After completion of further investigation, the respondent
police filed supplementary charge sheet along with memo dated
05.09.2023 in respect of the selection of Assistant Engineers. In respect
to the post of Junior Tradesmen, they filed supplementary charge sheet on
19.09.2023. On the same day, the respondent filed another supplementary
charge sheet in respect of the selection of Conductor. To the post of
Driver, the respondent filed supplementary charge sheet on 25.09.2023.
However, the respondent delayed the sanction for prosecution as against
the accused persons. Therefore, one of the victims filed miscellaneous
application in M.A.No.1381 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.1677 of 2023 before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India to expedite the trial of criminal cases by
appointing special investigation team and special prosecutor etc. After
questioned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the State of Tamil
Nadu accorded sanction to prosecute the accused on 23.08.2024. Further,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by an order dated 02.09.2024 sought
for report from the trial Court as to the details of cases handed by him.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:05 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.4368, 4579, 4590 & 4600 of 2025
Thereafter, the trial Court insisted the registry to club all the
supplementary charge sheet in C.C.No.24 of 2021.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that the trial Court suo motu without jurisdiction ordered to club
all the supplementary charge sheets in the main case, by contravening the
mandatory provision under Sections 219 to 224 of Cr.P.C. Further, the
trial Court without considering the facts that the accused have committed
the offence in respect of the selection for each post and as such it is
mandatory to conduct trials separately for each supplementary charge
sheets. The proviso under Section 218 of Cr.P.C., provides that separate
trial shall be conducted for distinct offence committed by the accused.
8.1. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India reported in 2022 (2) SCC 89 in the case of Nasib Singh
vs. State of Punjab and anr., which held that if a person falls under the
exceptions of Sections 219 to 221 of Cr.P.C., then a joint trial for the
offences which a person is charged with may be conducted. Similarly,
under Section 223 of Cr.P.C., a joint trial may be held for the persons
charged with different offences, if any of the clauses in the provision are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:05 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.4368, 4579, 4590 & 4600 of 2025
separately or on a combination is satisfied. It is further held that while
applying the principles enunciated under Sections 218-223 of Cr.P.C., on
conducting joint and separate trials, the trial court should apply a two
pronged test viz., whether conducting a joint/separate trial will prejudice
the defence of the accused and whether conducting a joint/ separate trial
would cause judicial delay. Since the provisions which engraft an
exception use the phrase 'may' with reference to conducting a joint trial, a
separate trial is usually not contrary to law even if a joint trial could be
conducted, unless proven to cause a miscarriage of justice.
8.2. He further submitted that when the victims are totally
different and post in whose appointments the crimes were committed are
different, the trial Court ought not to have ordered for clubbing all the
supplementary charge sheet in one main case. In fact, none of the accused
approached the trial Court for seeking joint trial. When it being so, the
clubbing of all the supplementary reports has no legal basis.
8.3. He further submitted that C.C.No.24 of 2021 was already
commenced for trial in the month of March, 2024 and Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India also held that there is prima facie case as against the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:05 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.4368, 4579, 4590 & 4600 of 2025
accused persons for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act
as such, the trial Court ought not to have ordered for clubbing of the
supplementary charge sheet together. The dictum of law is to continue the
trial to expedite the completion of even any one charge to ensure
punishment if proved, or to acquit if not proved, for a criminal at the
earliest possible time. In C.C.No.24 of 2021, there are only 47 accused
persons and already the case was riped for trial. On the basis of the
supplementary charge sheets, they added 2209 accused and also increased
the witnesses from 112 to 668. It is impossible for the trial Court to
complete the trial within stipulated time.
9. One of the accused persons filed implead petition to implead
himself as a party to these petition and Mr.V.Karthik, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the impleaded respondent submitted that on the
complaint only one FIR has been registered in Crime No.441 of 2015 for
the offences under Sections 406, 420 r/w 34 of IPC as against the accused
persons. After completion of investigation, they filed final report and the
same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.3627 of 2017. On the
application filed by one of the victims to further investigation, this Court
by an order dated 27.11.2019 in Crl.O.P.No.32067 of 2019, directed to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:05 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.4368, 4579, 4590 & 4600 of 2025
conduct further investigation and till such time keep the C.C.No.3627 of
2017 in abeyance. On receipt of the supplementary final report, the
Special Metropolitan Magistrate Court for CCB and CBCID cases,
Egmore had taken cognizance in C.C.No.24 of 2021 for the offences
under Section 406, 419, 420 r/w. 34, 120B, 465, 467, 471 & 201 of IPC
and Section 7, 12, 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Thereafter, it was transferred to the Special Court for trial cases related to
MP/MLAs, Chennai and renumbered as C.C.No.22 of 2021, in which the
impleaded respondent is arrayed as A7.
9.1. As against the quashment of entire proceedings under the
compromise, the appeals were filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India. As directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India ordered for
further investigation and accordingly, the respondent police conducted
further investigation and filed supplementary charge sheets in
Crl.M.P.Nos.22311, 24674, 24689 & 23733 of 2023 respectively in
Crime No.441 of 2015. On receipt of the supplementary charge sheets,
the trial Court ordered to club all the supplementary final report in
C.C.No.21 of 2021 and directed to issue summons to the accused.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:05 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.4368, 4579, 4590 & 4600 of 2025
9.2. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the
provisions under Section 218 of Cr.P.C., envisages that for every distinct
offence of which the person is accused, there shall be a separate charge
sheet and every charge shall be tried separately. The meaning of the
expression 'every distinct offence' is vital to understand the scope of
Section 218 of Cr.P.C., and its applicability. In this regard, he relied upon
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 1963
Supp(2) SCR 338 in the case of Banwarilal Jhunjhunwala Vs. Union of
India, which held as follows :-
“13. The question is, what is meant, by "every
distinct offence"? "Distinct" means "not identical". It
stresses characteristics that distinguish while the word
'separate' would stress the "two things not being the
same. Two offences would be distinct if they be not in any
way inter-related. If there be some inter-relation, there
would be no distinctness and it would depend on the
circumstances of the case in which the offences were
committed whether there be separate charges for those
offences or not.
14. Such a view has been the basis of certain
decisions by the High Courts and this Court. In Chunnoo
v. State Kidwai, J. said at p. 797:"The use of word
'distinct' is of great significance and the legislature
having inserted it, we must, so far as possible, give it a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:05 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.4368, 4579, 4590 & 4600 of 2025
meaning and not treat it as redundant. Every distinct
offence cannot be treated as having the same meaning as
'every offence'. The only meaning that the word 'distinct'
can have in the context in which it occurs is to indicate
that there should be no connection between the various
acts which give rise to criminal liability. If there is such a
connection, one action is not 'distinct' from other actions
and each of them, even if it constitutes an offence, does
not constitute a 'distinct' offence."
Thus, it is clear that distinct offences are to be tried separately and where
the offences are essentially the same, they are intended to be tried
together.
9.3. As far as the case on hand is concerned, it involves job
racket scam, wherein public servants and others conspired to cheat a huge
sum of money in the process of recruiting for various posts in the
Metropolitan Transport Corporation. Therefore, Section 218 of Cr.P.C.,
does not apply to the case on hand. Further the provision under Section
220 of Cr.P.C., deals with trail for more than one offence. It is relevant to
extract the provision under Section 220(1) of Cr.P.C., as follows :-
“If in one series of acts so connected together as
to form the same transaction, more than one offence is
committed by the same person, he may be charged with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:05 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.4368, 4579, 4590 & 4600 of 2025
and tried in one trial for every such offence.”
Though the charge sheet has been framed for various offences of the
charges, it forms part of the same transactions. That apart, for the same
crime and same transactions, further investigation is ordered and
accordingly now the additional charge sheets have been filed by the
respondent police as contemplated under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.
10. The crux of the allegation is that under the notification called
for application for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer, Junior
Engineer, Junior Tradesmen, Conductor & Driver to the Metropolitan
Transport Corporation, Chennai. Since the respondent police failed to
include the offence under the Sections of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India directed to conduct further
investigation and file final report by including the offences under the
Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, separate trials itself doesn't
arise, since it cannot be construed as distinct offences. There is only one
cause of action in the crime and it is not distinct from other action and
each of them, even if it is for several posts, doesn't constitute the distinct
offences for separate trials. It is also relevant to extract Section 223 of
Cr.P.C., as follows :-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:05 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.4368, 4579, 4590 & 4600 of 2025
“223. What persons may be charged jointly – The
following persons may be charged and tried together,
namely:—
(a) persons accused of the same offence committed
in the course of the same transaction;
(b) persons accused of an offence and persons
accused of abetment of, or attempt to commit, such
offence;
(c) persons accused of more than one offence of the
same kind, within the meaning of section 219 committed
by them jointly within the period of twelve months;
(d) persons accused of different offences committed
in the course of the same transaction;
(e) persons accused of an offence which includes
theft, extortion, cheating, or criminal misappropriation,
and persons accused of receiving or retaining, or
assisting in the disposal or concealment of, property
possession of which is alleged to have been transferred
by any such offence committed by the first-named
persons, or of abetment of or attempting to commit any
such last-named offence;
(f) persons accused of offences under sections 411
and 414 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or either
of those sections in respect of stolen property the
possession of which has been transferred by one offence;
(g) persons accused of any offence under Chapter
XII of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) relating to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:05 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.4368, 4579, 4590 & 4600 of 2025
counterfeit coin and persons accused of any other offence
under the said Chapter relating to the same coin, or of
abetment of or attempting to commit any such offence;
and the provisions contained in the former part of this
Chapter shall, so far as may be, apply to all such
charges:
Provided that where a number of persons are
charged with separate offences and such persons do not
fall within any of the categories specified in this section,
the Magistrate may, if such persons by an application in
writing, so desire, and if he is satisfied that such persons
would not be prejudicially affected thereby, and it is
expedient so to do, try all such persons together”
Thus it is clear that the persons accused of the same offence committed in
the course of the same transaction may be charged and tried together.
12. Even assuming that though the offences are distinct one as
submitted by the petitioner, they would otherwise be covered under
Section 223 of Cr.P.C., it could not be tried together as they form part of
the same transaction. In this regard, it is relevant to relay upon the
judgment reported in 2010 (9) SCC 567 in the case C.Muniappan Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu, which held as follows :-
“37. The submission on behalf of the appellants
that two crimes bearing Nos. 188 and 190 of 2000 could
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:05 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.4368, 4579, 4590 & 4600 of 2025
not be clubbed together, has also no merit for the simple
reason that if the cases are considered, keeping in view
the totality of the circumstances and the sequence in
which the two incidents occurred, taking into
consideration the evidence of drivers and
conductors/cleaners of the vehicles involved in the first
incident and the evidence of C. Ramasundaram, VAO
(PW 87), we reach the inescapable conclusion that the
second occurrence was nothing but a fall out of the first
occurrence. The damage caused to the public transport
vehicles and the consequential burning of the University
bus remained part of one and the same incident. Merely
because two separate complaints had been lodged, did
not mean that they could not be clubbed together and one
charge-sheet could not be filed (see T.T. Antony v. State
of Kerala).”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:05 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.4368, 4579, 4590 & 4600 of 2025
13. If four sets of trials conducted for the offence arising out of
the same trial or connected series of acts, the evidence recorded in one
trial can only be used in that particular trial and must be recorded in the
other trial. Therefore, the provision under Section 273 of Cr.P.C.,
mandates that evidence must be recorded in the presence of the accused
or if the accused's presence is dispensed with, then in the presence of
their pleader, in order to protect the rights of the accused to a fair trial and
to ensure that they can hear the evidence being presented against them.
Therefore, if the separate trials are to be taken place in respect of the
same offences and transactions, the evidence of the witnesses will have to
be recorded in each trial separately, which will result in a waste of
precious judicial time. There will be a chance of full filling the lacunea
left in the earlier trail, if separate trials are conducted on each
supplementary charge sheet that too for the same transactions. If the
separate trials are permitted on the same transactions as against the same
accused persons, it would violate the right of the accused as guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
14. On perusal of the counter filed by the respondent police and
on the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:05 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.4368, 4579, 4590 & 4600 of 2025
reveals that after filing the final report in Crime No.441 of 2015, the trial
Court had taken cognizance in C.C.No.3627 of 2017. After the order
passed by this Court for further investigation, supplementary charge sheet
was filed under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., in respect to the post of Junior
Engineer, whereas 47 persons have been arrayed as accused, and the
same has been taken cognizance in the very same C.C.No.3627 of 2017.
Thereafter it was transferred to Special Court and renumbered as
C.C.No.24 of 2021.
15. While pending trial, as ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme of
India, the respondent police conducted further investigation and filed
final report by including the provisions under the Prevention of
Corruption Act and also ordered comprehensive investigation into the
entire scam. It is relevant to extract the order passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in Crl.A.No.1514 of 2022 dated 08.09.2022, as
follows :-
“56. ....... yet another contention raised on behalf of the
respondents is that there are two other cases where allegations
of corruption are made and that CC No.25 of 2021 with which
we are concerned now, did not involve allegations of
corruption. But the said contention is abhorring, for the simple
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:05 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.4368, 4579, 4590 & 4600 of 2025
reason that all criminal complaints arose out of the very same
cash for job scam. We are informed that the proceedings in
respect of those two cases have also been stayed by the High
Court. We do not know how the High Court could have stayed
prosecution of persons under the P.C. Act, especially in
matters of this nature.
57. As a matter of fact, the State ought to have
undertaken a comprehensive investigation into the entire scam,
without allowing the accused to fish out one case as if it was a
private money dispute."
The comprehensive investigation to be conducted since there are three
FIRs in Crime Nos.441 of 2015, 298 of 2017 and 344 of 2018 for the
very same transactions on the complaint lodged from the different
complainants. Accordingly, the respondent police conducted
comprehensive investigation covering all the relevant offences and
witness statements and filed four supplementary charge sheet under
Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. The trial Court assigned separate criminal
miscellaneous petition number for each separate charge sheet. Thereafter,
the trial Court clubbed all the charge sheet in C.C.No.24 of 2021.
16. The first supplementary charge sheet dated 31.08.2023 in
Crl.M.P.No.22311 of 2023 in respect to the post of Assistant Engineer, as
against 74 accused. The supplementary charge sheet in Crl.M.P.No.23733
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:05 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.4368, 4579, 4590 & 4600 of 2025
of 2023, in respect to the post of Junior Tradesmen as against 287
accused persons. The supplementary charge sheet in Crl.M.P.No.24674
of 2023 in respect to the post of Conductor as against 928 accused
persons. The supplementary charge sheet filed in Crl.M.P.No.24689 of
2023 in respect to the post of Driver as against 920 accused persons. The
respondent police filed four supplementary final reports for four posts.
However, all the supplementary charge sheets have been filed in Crime
No.441 of 2015 in C.C.No.24 of 2021 arising out of the same conspiracy.
As per the supplementary charge sheets, total numbers of accused persons
in C.C.No.24 of 2021 are 2306. According to the Prevention of
Corruption Act, the bribe giver is also an offender. Each person found to
have given a bribe has been named as an accused. Therefore, inclusion of
all individuals as accused persons is not only mandatory but also
necessary for ensuring a fair and comprehensive prosecution of the case.
17. That apart, for all the supplementary charge sheets same
witnesses and documents were examined to prove the case of the
prosecution. If separate trials were to be ordered, the same witnesses and
same documents will have to be examined and exhibited repeatedly in
each and every case. After clubbing all the supplementary final report in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:05 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.4368, 4579, 4590 & 4600 of 2025
C.C.No.24 of 2021 the count of the accused persons has been reduced to
2202 due to elimination of repetition of the accused persons. After
issuance of summons, so far 423 accused persons have appeared and for
appearance of other accused persons, the trial Court posted the trial on
different dates.
18. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court
finds no ground to interfere with the docket orders dated 18.09.2024 &
01.10.2024 passed by the trial Court and all the petitions are liable to be
dismissed. Accordingly, all the Criminal Original Petitions stand
dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
28.03.2025
(½)
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes
Speaking/non-speaking order
rts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:05 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.4368, 4579, 4590 & 4600 of 2025
To
1. The Additional Judge,
Special Court No.1 for trial of cases
related to MP/MLAs,
Chennai,
2. The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
Job Rocket Wing, Vepery,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 007.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:05 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.4368, 4579, 4590 & 4600 of 2025
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
rts
Common Order in
Crl.O.P.Nos.4368, 4579, 4590 & 4600 of 2025
and Crl.M.P.No.2774, 2910, 2914 & 2919 of 2025
28.03.2025
(½)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 03:59:05 pm )
