Madras High Court
V. Adhikesavan vs State Represented By on 7 October, 2025
Author: D. Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D. Bharatha Chakravarthy
2025:MHC:2332
Crl.A.Nos.218 & 219 of 2014 and Crl.A.No.76 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 21.07.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 07.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.A.Nos.218 and 219 of 2014
and
Crl.A.No.76 of 2015
Crl.A.No.218 of 2014
V. Adhikesavan ... Appellant/ Accused No.1
Vs.
State represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
Special Police Establishment,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Anti Corruption Bureau,
Chennai - 600006. ... Respondent/ Complainant
PRAYER in Crl.A.No.218 of 2014: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section
374 r/w 382 of Cr.P.C to set aside the order of conviction and sentence of one
year Rigorous Imprisonment imposed on the appellants/ accused of one year
Rigorous Imprisonment imposed on the appellant for offences under Section
420 and 409 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act by the IX Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai in C.C.No.06 of
2009, dated 28.03.2014 and to acquit the appellant.
1/41
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:56:57 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.218 & 219 of 2014 and Crl.A.No.76 of 2015
Crl.A.No.219 of 2014
A. Vijay Anand ... Appellant/ Accused No.2
Vs.
State represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Anti Corruption Bureau, Chennai.
(Ref. Cr.No.RC MA1 2008 A 0024, dated 21.05.2008) ... Respondent/ Complainant
PRAYER in Crl.A.No.219 of 2014: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section
374(2) of Cr.P.C to set aside the judgment of conviction passed by the learned
IX Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai in C.C.No.06 of 2009 as
against the appellant under Section 420 of IPC.
Crl.A.No.76 of 2015
State represented by,
The Additional Superintendent of Police,
CBI : ACB : Chennai.
(RC 24(A)/ 2008: CBI: ACB: Chennai) ... Appellant/ Complainant
Vs.
1. V. Adikesavan
2. A. Vijay Anand ... Respondents/ A1 and A2
PRAYER in Crl.A.No.76 of 2015: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section
378 of Cr.P.C to set aside the order of the Trial Court dated 28.03.2014 passed
in C.C.No.06 of 2009 by the learned IX Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases,
Chennai in so far as it relates to the acquittal of A1 and A2 for the charge under
Section 120-B IPC r/w 420 and 409 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2/41
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:56:57 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.218 & 219 of 2014 and Crl.A.No.76 of 2015
For Appellant in Crl.A.No.218 of 2014
and for R-1 in Crl.A.No.76 of 2015 : Mr. G.M. Ramasubramanian
(For M/s. Ram and Ram)
For Appellant in Crl.A.No.219 of 2014
and for R-2 in Crl.A.No.76 of 2015 : Mr. G.R. Hari
For Appellant in Crl.A.No.76 of 2015 and
for Respondent in Crl.A.Nos.218 and 219 of 2014: Mr. K.Srinivasan
(Spl.P.P. for CBI cases)
*******
COMMON JUDGMENT
A. The Appeals:
1. These appeals originate from the judgment dated 28.03.2014 made
in C.C.No.6 of 2009 on the file of the IX Additional Special Judge for CBI
cases, Chennai. By that judgment, two accused, who are involved in the case,
namely Accused No.1 - V. Adikesavan and Accused No.2 - Vijay Anand, were
found guilty in the following manner.
Accused Under Section Sentence
A1 Found guilty and convicted Sentenced to undergo RI for one and to
for the offence under pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, i/d to undergo
Sections 420 & 409 IPC and RI for two months for the offence u/s
under Sections 13(2) r/w 420 IPC.
13(1)(d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. Sentenced to undergo RI for one year
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:56:57 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.218 & 219 of 2014 and Crl.A.No.76 of 2015
Accused Under Section Sentence
and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, i/d to
undergo RI for two months for the
offence u/s 409 IPC.
Sentenced to undergo RI for one year
and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, i/d to
undergo RI for two months for the
offence u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C.
Act. 1988.
Sentenced to undergo RI for one and to
Found guilty and convicted
pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, i/d to undergo
A2 for the offence under
RI for two months for the offence u/s
Sections 420 IPC.
420 IPC.
1.1 By the same judgment, Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 were found
not guilty of the charges under Section 120B read with Section 420 and 409 of
IPC, and under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, Accused No.1
has filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.218 of 2014, and Accused No.2 has filed an
appeal in Crl.A.No.219 of 2014. While being dissatisfied with the acquittal of
the charge under Section 120-B, the prosecution has filed an appeal in
Crl.A.No.76 of 2015. Accordingly, all three appeals are taken up together and
disposed of by this common judgment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:56:57 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.218 & 219 of 2014 and Crl.A.No.76 of 2015
B. The Case of the Prosecution:
2. On 21.05.2008, upon receiving reliable information containing an
allegation that Accused No.1, namely Adikesavan, who at that time was working
as the Administrative Officer at the Tuberclosis Research Centre (TRC
hereinafter), Chennai, and Accused No.2—A. Vijay Anand, being his son—who
is only a direct Post Graduate in Public Administration [M.A. in Public
Administration] and has Tamil as his mother tongue, submitted an application in
response to an advertisement dated 23.04.2005 for a temporary post of
'Supervisor' without possessing the required qualifications. Despite knowing
that Accused No.2 did not possess the relevant qualifications, Accused No.1
signed the application, processed it, and included the name of Accused No.2 in
the pre-approved list. Subsequently, when the Selection Committee was formed
and after the interview, his son/Accused No.2 was selected for the temporary
post of Supervisor.
2.1 During October 2005, the TRC issued a circular inviting applications
from serving employees for the position of 'Technician' (Field Work), stating
that XII Standard and knowledge of Tamil were basic qualifications. The
Accused No.2 - Vijay Anand applied for this post, and the Accused No.1 -
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:56:57 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.218 & 219 of 2014 and Crl.A.No.76 of 2015
Adikesavan considered and processed his application, including him in the list
of eligible candidates, despite him not possessing the required qualifications.
Ultimately, he was appointed. Therefore, Accused No.2 abused his official
position by processing the application of an ineligible candidate, who was his
son, leading to his appointment.
2.2 On the strength of the said allegation, regular case in
R.C.No.2008/0024 for the alleged offences alleged under Sections 120-B, 420,
13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered by
P.W.19. Thereafter, he completed the investigation and filed charge sheet
against the said two persons proposing them as guilty for the aforesaid
mentioned offences and also for an offence under Section 409 of IPC.
C. The Trial & The Judgment:
3. Upon appearance of the accused and furnishing of the copies, the
following four charges were framed against Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 on
12.01.2010.
"FI R S T L Y , that you A cc u s e d N o . 1 - Adike s a v a n , Ad m i n i st r a ti v e
O f fi c e r , TR C , C h e n n a i and A c c u s e d N o . 2 - Vija y An a n d and Sri. B. Ro m d o s s
(app r o v e r ) , the then Secti o n O ff i c e r , T R C , C h e n n a i , durin g the year 20 0 5 , ente r e d
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:56:57 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.218 & 219 of 2014 and Crl.A.No.76 of 2015
into crim i n a l cons p i r a c y at C h e n n a i and othe r plac e s to che at Tub e r c u l o s i s
Res e a r c h C e n t e r , C h e n n a i in the matter of recr uit m e n t for reg ul a r app o i nt m e n t of
Tec h n i c i a n (Fiel d worke r ) in T R C , C h e n n a i , and in purs u a n c e of the said crimi n a l
cons p i r a c y , you Ac c u s e d N o. 2 - Vija y An a n d applie d for the post of Sup e r vi s o r
(Te m p o r a r y ) in mort ality surv ey kno wi n g fully well that you Vija y An a n d was not
havin g pres c r i b e d educ a ti o n a l qualific a ti o n i.e., P o st G r a d u a t e in So ci o l o g y/
So ci a l W o r k and health/ trainin g relate d to health investi g a ti o n , in purs u a n c e of
the said crimi n a l con s p i r a c y you Ac c u s e d N o . 1 - Adik e s a v a n by corr u p t or illeg a l
mea n s or by abusi n g your officia l positi o n as Ad m i n i s t r a tiv e O f fi c e r in TR C
C h e n n a i , dish o n e s tl y acc e pt e d the applic a ti o n of Vija y An a n d/ A cc u s e d N o . 2,
kno w i n g fully well that Ac c u s e d N o. 2/ Vijay An a n d had not poss e s s e d the
req uisit e qualific at i o n and expe ri e n c e for the post of Supe r v i s o r (tem p o r a r y ) in
M o r t a l ity Surv e y proje ct and the appli c a t i o n rea c h e d the office after the last date
of sub m i s s i o n pres c r i b e d in the adve rtis e m e n t . In purs u a n c e of the said crim i n a l
cons p i r a c y you Adik e s a v a n/ Ac c u s e d N o . 1 inclu d e d the na m e of A cc u s e d N o. 2
wh o had not poss e s s e d the requi site qualific a ti o n and expe r ie n c e for the post of
Sup e r vi s o r Te m p o r a r y in M o r t a l ity Surv e y Pr o j e c t, in the eligi bl e list. In
purs u a n c e of the said cri mi n a l con s p i r a c y you Ac c u s e d N o. 1/ Adike s a v a n
dish o n e s t l y took print o ut of questi o n pape r and ans w e r keys pertain i n g to written
exa m i n a t i o n for the post of Sup e r v i s o r (Te m p o r a r y ) and H e a lt h W o r k e r well in
adva n c e by usin g the flop p y diskette entrust e d to him by D r . C . K o l a p p a n , the
C h a i r m a n of Sele cti o n C o m m i t t e e for the said recr uit m e n t and hand e d over the
questi o n pap e r and ans w e r keys for the post of Sup e r v i s o r to your son Vin a y
An a n d/ A c c u s e d N o. 2 . In pursu a n c e of the crimi n a l cons p i r a c y , you Vija y An a n d/
A c c u s e d N o. 2 receiv e d the questi o n pap e r and ans w e r keys for the post of
Sup e r vi s o r fro m you Adik e s a v n , used the sa m e and sco r e d 25 marks out of 25
marks in the written exa m i n a ti o n and there b y you Ac c u s e d N o . 2/ Vija y An a n d was
sele ct e d for the post of Sup e r vi s o r and serve d in the post of Sup e r v i s o r
(tem p o r a r y ) in mo rt a lity surve y proj e ct fro m 04.0 8 . 2 0 0 5 to 22.1 1. 2 0 0 5 . In
purs u a n c e of the said con s p i r a c y you Adike s a v a n also hand e d over a copy of
questi o n pap e r and ans w e r keys pertain i n g to the post of H e a lt h W o r k e r to
B. R a m d o s s (app r o v e r ) wh o s e son Sri Raj a Selv a Sekh a r a n was a can d i d a t e
app e a r e d for the writte n test for the post of H e a lt h W o r k e r on 23.0 7 . 2 0 0 8 at
H y d e r a b a d . Sri. B . R a m d o s s (app r o v e r ) who s e son Sri Raj a Selv a Sekh a r a n was a
can d i d a t e app e a r e d for the written test of the post of H e a lt h W o r k e r on
23.0 7. 2 0 0 8 at H y d e r a b a d . Sri B. R a m d o s s (ap p r o v e r ) han d e d over the questi o n
pap e r and ans w e r keys whic h he receiv e d fro m you Ac c u s e d N o . 1 Adik e s a v a n to
his son Raja Selv a Sekh a r a n alon g with so m e othe r questi o n pap e r s und e r the
pretext that those questi o n pape r s and ans w e r keys are the mo d e l questi o n pap e r
and ther e b y you Ac c u s e d N o. 1/ Adik e s a v a n , Vija y An a n d/ A c c u s e d N o . 2 and
appr o v e r B. R a m d o s s co m m i tt e d an offen c e punis h a b l e u/s. 120 - B r/w 42 0 IP C ,
40 9 IP C and 13( 2 ) r/w 13( 1 )( d ) of IP C Act, 19 8 8 and within my cog niz a n c e .
S E C O N D L Y , that you Adik e s a v a n/ A c c u s e d N o . 1 and Vija y An a n d/
A c c u s e d N o . 2 on or abo ut the peri o d and plac e as state d in the previ o u s cha r g e
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:56:57 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.218 & 219 of 2014 and Crl.A.No.76 of 2015
and in furthe r a n c e of the abo v e said crim i n a l con s p i r a c y you Ac c u s e d N o. 1 by
abusi n g or misus i n g your offici a l positi o n che at e d the Tub e r c u l o s i s Res e a r c h
C e n t e r by frau d u l e n t l y and dish o n e s t l y issue d a circu l a r und e r refer e n c e
N o. 4 4 3 2/ E/ 2 0 5 dated 20.1 0 . 2 0 0 5 by violatin g the I C M R recr u it m e n t rules and by
insertin g a claus e in the circ ul a r "D e s i r a b l e exp er i e n c e " to acc o m m o d a t e your
son Vijay An a n d/ Ac c u s e d N o. 2 who was havin g only 04 mo nt h s expe ri e n c e in the
post of Tec h n i c i a n (F W ) in TR C and indu c e d TR C C h e n n a i to issu e app o i nt m e n t
orde r to your son Vijay An a n d , wh o was not havin g esse nti a l expe ri e n c e for the
post of Tec h n i c i a n (F S ) and you Ac c u s e d N o . 2/ Vija y An a n d dish o n e s tl y applie d
for the post of Sup e r v is o r (Te m p . ) in T R C ( M o r t a l it y Surv e y ) C h e n n a i kno w i n g
fully well that you A c c u s e d N o. 2 wer e not havin g the req uisit e qualific at i o n ( M . A . ,
So ci o l o g y ) and exp er i e n c e for the post of Sup e r v i s o r (Te m p . ) you A cc u s e d N o . 2
frau d u l e n t l y and dish o n e s t l y con c e a l e d your optio n a l subje ct (Pu b l i c
Ad m i n i s t r a ti o n ) on the applic a ti o n and you Ac c u s e d N o. 2/ Vija y An a n d receiv e d
the questi o n s and ans w e r keys for the post of Supe r v i s o r (Te m p o r a r y ) fro m your
father Adike s a v a n/ Ac c u s e d N o . 1 kno w i n g fully well that your father had
frau d u l e n t l y took the print out by abusi n g his offici al positio n and there b y you
Adike s a v a n/ Ac c u s e d N o. 1 and Ac c u s e d N o. 2/ Vija y An a n d che ate d the
Tub e r c u l o s i s Res e a r c h C e n t e r and there b y co m m i tt e d offen c e punis h a b l e u/s.4 2 0
IP C and within my co g n iz a n c e .
T H I R D L Y , that you Ac c u s e d N o. 1/ A d i k e s a v a n durin g the peri o d and
plac e as state d in the previ o u s char g e , bein g a public serv a n t, empl o y e d in the
dep a rt m e n t as stated in the first char g e and durin g the pro c e s s of recr u it m e n t of
staff for the post of Sup e r v i s o r (Te m p o r a r y ) and H e a lt h wo rk e r in the proje c t
entitle d "M o r t a l ity Surve y in An d h r a Pr a d e s h and O r i s s a ", D r . C . K o l a p p a n , the
Pri n c i p a l Investi g a t o r entru st e d a flop p y diskette cont ai n i n g questi o n pap e r and
ans w e r keys for the written exa m i n a ti o n for the post of Sup e r v i s o r (Te m p o r a r y )
and H e a lt h W o r k e r to you Ac c u s e d N o . 1/ Adike s a v a n with clea r instru cti o n to
maint ai n strict confid e n t i a lit y and take print out/ har d cop y of the questi o n pap e r
on day prio r to dep a r t u r e to H y d e r a b a d and as such you Ac c u s e d N o . 1/
Adike s a v a n havin g do m i n i o n over the flop p y diskette cont ai n i n g questi o n pap e r
and ans w e r keys in your cap a c it y as Ad m i n i st r a t iv e O ff i c e r , TR C , C h e n n a i , you
A c c u s e d N o. 1/ Adik e s a v a n dish o n e s t l y took print out of the questi o n pap e r and
ans w e r keys pertain i n g to the post of Supe r v i s o r (Te m p o r a r y ) and hand e d over
the sam e to your son Vija y An a n d/ Ac c u s e d N o. 2 and the sam e was used by you
Vija y An a n d . Simil a r l y you Adik e s a v a n took the print out of the questi o n pap e r
and ans w e r keys pertain i n g to the post of H e a l t h W o r k e r and han d e d over the
sa m e to B. R a m d o s s (app r o v e r ) , Sectio n O ff i c e r (Ret d.), TR C and ther e b y
co m m i tt e d crim i n a l brea c h of trust by frau d u l e n tl y and dish o n e s tl y took the print
out of questi o n pap e r and ans w e r keys pertai ni n g to the post of Sup e r vi s o r and
H e a l t h W o r k e r fro m the flop p y diskette whic h was han d e d over by D r . C . K o l a p p a n
and there b y you Ac c u s e d N o. 1/ Adike s a v a n co m m i tt e d C r i m i n a l Br a c h of Trust
with resp e c t iv e the said pro p e r t y and there b y co m m itt e d offen c e punis h a b l e
u/s.40 9 IP C and within my cog niz a n c e .
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:56:57 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.218 & 219 of 2014 and Crl.A.No.76 of 2015
F O U R T H L Y , that you Ac c u s e d N o. 1/ Adik e s a v a n durin g the peri o d
and plac e as state d in the first cha r g e , bein g a publi c serv a nt, abus e d your offici a l
positi o n, pro c e s s e d the appli c a t i o n for the post of Sup e r vi s o r sub m itt e d by your
son Vijay An a n d wh o was not havin g requisit e qualifi c a ti o n for the said post by
misusi n g your offici al positio n insert e d the na m e of your son in the eligib l e list of
can d i d a t e and got app o i n t e d your son Vija y An a n d in the post of Sup e r v i s o r
(tem p o r a r y ) and furthe r you Ac c u s e d N o . 1/ Adike s a v a n by abusi n g and misusi n g
your offici a l positio n as Ad m i n i s t r a t iv e O f fi c e r issue d a circu l a r vide refer e n c e
N o. 4 4 3 2/ E/ 2 0 0 5 date d 20.1 0 . 2 0 0 5 to fill up the post of Te c h n i c i a n (F W ) with o u t
obtain i n g any ad m in i st r a ti v e app r o v a l fro m the co m p e t e n t auth o r it y and you
Adike s a v a n by abusi n g your offici al positi o n inserte d desir a b l e claus e in the
circ ul a r to acc o m m o d a t e your son Vija y An a n d wh o was havin g only 04 mo nt h s
expe r i e n c e and there b y you Adike s a v a n got app o i n t m e n t of your son Vija y An a n d
for the post of Tec h n i c i a n (F W ) in T R C and ther e b y you Ac c u s e d N o. 1 A dik e s a v a n
co m m i tt e d an offen c e punis h a b l e u/s. 13( 2 ) r/w. 31(1 )( d ) of Pr e v e n t i o n of
C o r r u p t i o n A ct, 19 8 8 and within my cog niz a n c e ."
3.1 The accused denied the charges and stood trial to contest them. On
behalf of the prosecution, 19 witnesses, P.W.1 to P.W.19, were examined. P.W.1
- Dr. Vishwa Mohan Katoch, who was then the Director General of ICMR,
processed and granted the sanction. P.W.2 - P.R. Narayanan, retired as the
Director of TRC, testified about the responsibilities of the accused no.1 as an
Administrative Officer and for nominating Kolappan as the Principal
Investigator, along with the subsequent advertisement for other posts. P.W.3 -
Devaki, a Section Officer working in the institute, deposed about the
maintenance of the despatch register and other documents maintained with
regards to the recruitment process and related communications.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:56:57 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.218 & 219 of 2014 and Crl.A.No.76 of 2015
3.2 One R. Lakshminarayanan was examined as P.W.4, the Senior
Administrative Officer, who deposed about the TRC, being a center of the
ICMR, and discussed the framing and amendment of recruitment rules related to
the post. He also mentioned that the Accused No. 2 did not possess the essential
qualifications. The typist working in the institute, Kousalya, was examined as
P.W.5 and deposed about the day-to-day activities, including receiving
applications in response to the advertisement and maintaining registers, etc. G.
Vengadajalapathi, an officer from Annamalai University, was examined as
P.W.6 and deposed about the educational qualifications of the Accused No. 2.
K. Rajeswari, another temporary employee in the institute who handled files
related to incoming letters, was examined as P.W.7. Rangamma, the Private
Secretary working in the institute, was examined as P.W.8 to depose about the
personal folder of the Accused No. 2, including the appointment orders and his
qualifications.
3.3 One H.L. Arora, who was the Senior Administrative Officer at ICMR
and also investigated the matter upon receiving the complaint from the Chief
Vigilance Commissioner, was examined as P.W.9. One K. Sadacharam, who
was the Deputy Director of Senior Grade at the institute, was examined as
P.W.10. He was a member of the Selection Committee that nominated and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:56:57 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.218 & 219 of 2014 and Crl.A.No.76 of 2015
selected the Accused No.2. One M. Subramanian was examined as P.W.11; he
was also part of the Selection Committee. One Dr. C. Kolappan, the retired
Senior Deputy Director, was examined as P.W.12. He testified about heading
the selection committee, entrusting the question papers to Accused No.1, and
completing the selection procedures afterward. One Dr. Bhaskaran, another
member of the Selection Committee, was examined as P.W.13. One V.
Kumarasami was examined as P.W.14 to demonstrate that Ex.P.12 - the circular
– was issued by Accused No.1 without any approval.
3.4 One Ramdoss, who is the 'Approver' in this case, was examined as
P.W.15, and his son was also selected in the process. He spoke about the fact
that the Accused No.1 handed over the question papers to him for his son's
purpose and had also said that he would not repay the loan previously obtained
by him, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, in view of the said favour done by him. One
Sridharan was examined as P.W.16, who spoke about the sanction given for the
mortality study projects and the appointment of Accused No.2 as a Temporary
Supervisor. One V. Venkateswaralu, who was also a member of the interview
board for the post of Supervisor, was examined as P.W.17. One A.V. K. Murthy,
who was a witness to the seizure and search proceedings and the preparation of
the Magazar related to the recovery proceedings, was examined as P.W.18. One
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:56:57 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.218 & 219 of 2014 and Crl.A.No.76 of 2015
C. S. Moni, the Investigating Officer, was examined as P.W.19. Apart from this,
77 exhibits were marked as Exs. P.1 to P.77.
3.5 Upon being questioned about the incriminating evidence on record,
the accused denied it. Thereafter, Accused No.1 examined himself as D.W.1,
and Exs.D.1 to D.4 were also marked on behalf of the defence. The Trial Court
considered the arguments of the learned Special Public Prosecutor and the
learned counsel for the accused. It found that the prosecution had not failed to
prove the charges framed against the accused under Sections 120-B read with
420 and 409 of IPC and Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, because there could not have been pre-meditation of the entire
episode, which unfolded later. However, the Trial Court found Accused No.1
guilty of the offences of cheating under Section 420 of IPC, criminal breach of
trust under Section 409, and criminal misconduct under Sections 13(2) read with
13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Accused No.2 was found guilty of
cheating, and both were sentenced as mentioned above. Aggrieved, they filed
the present appeals.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:56:57 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.218 & 219 of 2014 and Crl.A.No.76 of 2015
D. The arguments:
4. Mr.G.M. Ramasubramanian, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the Accused No.1, by taking this Court through the evidence and by detailed
memorandum of grounds that was filed in the instance case would submit that,
the first and foremost allegation against the Accused No.1 as if, he had inserted
the application of Accused No.2 belatedly by abusing his official position is not
at all proved by the prosecution. It can be seen that the advertisement was of
very short duration. The entries in Ex.P.7 - Receipt Register was made en
mass e relating to the list of last bunch of applications. In the absence of
evidence that application of the Accused No.2 alone being entered belatedly,
the finding in this regard is only based on surmises and not made out by the
evidence of P.W.7. Once the application was taken on file, except to maintain
that file relating to the number of applications that are received, no part is
played by the Accused No.1, with reference to the first selection of Accused
No.2 as ‘Supervisor' in the scheme employment. It can be seen that the call
letter was sent by due process to all the candidates, it was decided to send the
call letters to everyone, considering the fact that the majority of them did not
have have 'Telugu' or 'Oriya' as their mother tongue and even the experience and
qualification was lacking for majority of the applicants. Considering the fact
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:56:57 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.218 & 219 of 2014 and Crl.A.No.76 of 2015
that it was a temporary post on a consolidated pay, the decision was made by the
institute to send the call letter to everyone. The learned counsel would point out
to the evidence of P.W.11 to this effect that the decision was made by the
Chairman and the Committee.
4.1 The next allegation that is made against Accused No.1 is relating to
the leaking out of the question paper. Firstly, on a perusal of the question and
answers, it can be seen that the same are very simple question and answers and
merely because, Accused No.2 had got full marks (25 out of 25) in the written
examination, the same by itself would not prove the act of the Accused No.1
sharing the question paper. Howsoever strong the suspicion may be, it cannot
take place of proof for proving the criminal charge. The evidence relating to the
handing over of the floppy-disc itself is riddled with contradiction. There is no
such evidence at all that Accused No.1 took print outs of the question paper with
answer and handed over to the Accused No.2. The original floppy disk or the
computer that is seized was never produced before the Court. The recovery
proceedings does not corroborate and reflect the exact case of the prosecution.
Further, P.W.18, who was the Bank of Baroda official, who was called as a
witness for the recovery proceedings, did not speak about the dates of which the
computer has been accessed and the very proceedings were conducted, which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:56:57 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.218 & 219 of 2014 and Crl.A.No.76 of 2015
would only throw even more doubt in the case of the prosecution.
4.2 P.W.5 - Kousalya categorically deposed that she had taken print outs
only on 22.07.2005. The technical evidence that is brought on record by the
prosecution does not corroborate the said version and it is contradictory to one
another. As a matter of fact, the so called approver- P.W.15 has deposed that
the question paper was handed over on 17.07.2005 itself, whereas recovery
proceedings would show that the print outs were made only on 22.07.2005.
Merely because the Accused No.1’s son got selected and got 100% marks in the
written examination, only out of strong suspicion, the allegation is made.
Though Accused No.1 could have recused himself from the entire exercise, the
error that is committed being not recusing, cannot be made as an instance to
fasten the criminal liability.
4.3 The next allegation that is made against Accused No.1 is that, he
only issued the circular dated 20.10.2005, which is marked as Ex.P.12. Firstly,
it can be seen that though the circular was issued by Accused No.1, thereafter
when the Director was examined as P.W.2, he has categorically deposed that
Accused No.1 had informed him about the same and authorisation given to him
to issue such circular and thereafter, P.W.2 has also ratified the same. In the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:56:57 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.218 & 219 of 2014 and Crl.A.No.76 of 2015
cross examination, there is a specific admission, that he had ratified the issuance
of such circular, therefore the very issue of circular, by itself is only part of the
functions as an Administrative Officer and has got nothing to do with the fact
that his son applied and also got selected.
4.4 On the contrary, the concerned witnesses have admitted that the
selection of Accused No.2 in the said interview was clearly based on merit. The
Selection Committee members have categorically deposed about the same. The
very process of short-listing the applications and calling for interview are all
done only by the Selection Committee and the appellant/ Accused No.2 has got
nothing to do with the same. On the whole, it can be seen that, the prosecution
had proved nothing but the fact that Accused No.2 was selected earlier as
'Supervisor' and thereafter, as 'Technician', both in violation of certain
conditions in the recruitment rules. The recruitment being done only by the
Selection Committee and it is not the act of any abuse of official position of
Accused No.1, absolutely no offence what so ever is made out against the
Accused No.1.
4.5 Mr. G.R. Hari, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Accused No.2 would submit that Accused No.2 is not in a position of power or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:56:57 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.218 & 219 of 2014 and Crl.A.No.76 of 2015
authority. But, it is normal that these organisations, in their objective to make
the project within the sanctioned budget to engage temporary hands for lesser
salary. Not many of the candidates with proper qualifications apply to these
posts. Organisations like ICMR, tend to call for these candidates also, even if
they do not posses the exact qualification. Even though Accused No.2 did not
possess the exact qualification of 'Post Graduate in Sociology', he had 'Post
Graduate in Public Administration' and he had some experience with reference
to collection of data, etc., therefore, only by way of taking a chance, Accused
No.2 had applied. Merely because, an ineligible applied to a post, it cannot be
said that he is making an attempt to cheat the organisation.
4.6 The Selection Committee thought it fit to issue the call letter and
thereafter, selected Accused No.2 as per merits. As far as the marks obtained by
Accused No.2 in the written examination is concerned, it is the imagination of
the prosecution it was because the Accused No.1 who is the father of Accused
No.2 happens to be the Administrative Officer of the said organisation. The
question paper is very simple that any school going of VIII Standard can answer
all the questions correctly. It so happened that Accused No.2 and the other
approver's son have answered all the questions correctly. That by itself cannot
be a conclusive proof that any attempt made by Accused No.2 to cheat. On a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:56:57 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.218 & 219 of 2014 and Crl.A.No.76 of 2015
perusal of the application as well as the bio-data, Accused No.2 neither
suppressed that he is the son of Accused No.1 nor any other false information
was furnished. Even with reference to Telugu, Accused No.2 only mentioned
that he knew Telugu and did not say that his mother tongue is Telugu.
Therefore, when the applicants like Accused No.2, with a fond hope, apply to
the post, if sometimes the required qualified candidates are not available, the
organisation calls for the candidates with equivalent qualifications, that itself
cannot be termed as cheating.
4.7 It can be seen from the evidence on record, that majority of the
candidates, who applied for the post of Supervisor, etc., possess different
qualifications other than the actual qualifications required by the organisation.
It is not the case of the prosecution that all of them were relatives of Accused
No.1 or the other officials of the organisation. Normally upon information the
relatives also apply and the selection of the relatives is a widely prevalent
phenomenon in ICMR and other organisations. In these circumstances applying
for the post cannot amount to an offence under Section 420 of IPC. The stand of
the Selection Committee with reference to the second post is that, Accused No.2
was selected only on merit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:56:57 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.218 & 219 of 2014 and Crl.A.No.76 of 2015
4.8 It is his further contention that with reference to the recovery
proceedings, the path only shows about the saving of the file from the pen drive
to the system and it does not demonstrate about the opening of the file and
taking of print out of the question paper, more specifically the date of accessing
of the print out. Therefore, in the guise of the technical evidence, the
prosecution only has attempted to bring in some material which does not throw
any light on the truth. The further allegation with reference to non obtaining of
required qualification is concerned, the learned counsel would also submit that
Accused No.2 after completion of X Standard, he has also obtained diploma,
which is treated as equivalent to XII Standard in many occasions by many
institutions. Even considering the act of applying itself is erroneous, such a mis-
judgment on the part of Accused No.2 can never be treated as cheating the
organisation.
4.9 It is only a case, where he applied for an employment and got
selected. Even if the selection is found to be erroneous, appropriate proceedings
can be taken with reference to the service. Nobody unduly lost selection as
Supervisor. Accused No. 2 had performed his duties and earned his salary.
There is no financial loss to the organisation. Therefore, the offence of under
Section 420 of IPC is not made out. Nobody lost any valuable security or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:56:57 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.218 & 219 of 2014 and Crl.A.No.76 of 2015
property in the matter, therefore the offence under Section 420 of IPC is not
made out.
4.10 Both learned counsel for Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 also
relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
A.Sivaprakash vs. State of Kerala1 with reference to the term criminal
misconduct and submit that the entire episode does not relate to corruption. The
entire selection was done by the duly constituted Selection Committee. The
initial investigation reports submitted by the prosecution witnesses categorically
gave a clean chit for the selection. No allegation be made. Mere violation of a
procedure, will never become a criminal misconduct. In the absence of a
criminal misconduct, the conviction of Accused No.1 in that regard is also
erroneous. There is no specific evidence of conspiracy between Accused No.1
and Accused No.2. At the end of the day, a son/ Accused No.2 came to be
employed in the organisation, where father/ Accused No.1 is an Administrative
Officer in the same organisation and only for the said fact, both Accused No.1
and Accused No.2 have been prosecuted and convicted. For that matter, there
are enumerable number of father and sons, who are working in the same
organisations throughout the Country.
1 (2016) 12 SCC 273
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:56:57 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.218 & 219 of 2014 and Crl.A.No.76 of 2015
4.11 Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that
in the instant case, the thread of constant behaviour of deception and abuse on
the part of Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 from the inception till the end has
been demonstrated by the prosecution. The charge under Section 120-B can
also be proved by circumstantial evidence. In this case, the circumstances are
such that it points out the only hypothesis of both acting in tandem so as to cheat
the organisation. Therefore the acquittal in respect of the charge of conspiracy
should also be reversed by this Court and the appeal filed by the prosecution has
to be allowed.
4.12 With reference to the appeals that are filed by the accused, the
learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution has proved the
offences to the hilt. Firstly, in the first advertisement, the essential qualification
and the desirable qualifications are swapped. It should be seen in the particular
context that Accused No.2 is a direct Post Graduate holder without a degree. In
order to somewhat look like as if he had got some qualification, the essential
and desirable qualifications were swapped, even in the first advertisement.
4.13 Secondly, it can be seen that the application of Accused No.2 was
not made within time. P.W.7 has been examined in this regard and the register
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:56:57 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.218 & 219 of 2014 and Crl.A.No.76 of 2015
has been produced. The prosecution has proved that the application of Accused
No.2 was belatedly inserted. Merely because some other applications could have
also been inserted belatedly that doesn't absolve the accused of this misconduct.
Accused No.1 being the father and also the Administrative Officer of the
institute, who was dealing with the file of recruitment, firstly ought to have
recused himself from the entire transaction by stating that his son/ Accused No.2
is participating in the recruitment. Secondly, he himself has initialled in his own
son's application and enlisted the same for the consideration of the Selection
Committee.
4.14 P.W.12 - Kolappan has categorically spoken about the fact that the
floppy disk containing the question paper and also the answer keys were handed
over to Accused No.1 with a request to take print out of the same and bring to
Hyderabad at the time of examination. Even at that point of time, Accused No.1
did not disclose the said information to the said Selection Committee Head and
did not recuse himself from the selection process.
4.15 On the contrary, he not only took print out of the question paper and
answer keys and handed over to his son, but from the evidence of P.W.15 -
Approver, it can be seen that, he has handed over a copy of the question paper to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:56:57 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.218 & 219 of 2014 and Crl.A.No.76 of 2015
him also for the sake of the Approver's son in who was also participating in the
selection. The circumstance that only these two candidates alone got full marks
(25 out of 25) in the written examination would itself adumbrate the mis-
conduct on the part of Accused No.1. Being entrusted with the floppy disk,
which is sensitive information relating to the question paper and answer keys
for the recruitment, there is a breach of trust imposed on him, he has taken print
out of the same and helped his son/ Accused No.2.
4.16 The contradictions that are pleaded by the learned counsels on
behalf of the appellants/ accused are not correct and the recovery proceedings
further buttress and corroborate to the allegations made. Further, he would
submit that the further conduct of Accused No.1 became even more
questionable, when the regular post of Technician was to be filled up. The
recruitment rules mandate that the recruitment has to be done by way of direct
recruitment, that is, calling for application from the employment exchange and
by making an advertisement in the open market. Without doing both of the
above, the Accused No.1 had issued the circular, calling for applications from
among the existing servants/persons working on adhoc basis in the institute
itself.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:56:57 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.218 & 219 of 2014 and Crl.A.No.76 of 2015
4.17 P.W.1 and P.W.2, have deposed that there was no authorisation for
Accused No.1 to issue such a circular. The circular was in gross violation of the
recruitment rules. Further the circular was also manipulated to wrongly mention
the un-amended qualification, while the recruitment rules were already amended
by that time. All these manipulations were done only with the sole intention of
personally enriching himself by appointing his own son/ Accused No.2.
Ultimately in the interview, it so happened that Accused No.2 was promptly
selected and it can be seen that on both occasions, Accused No.2 does not have
the required educational qualifications, experience or the qualification relating
to the language. Therefore, the prosecution has proved to the hilt that both
accused have conspired together and Accused No.2 with the instigation of
Accused No.1 has made false representation as if he is fully qualified to apply
for the post and Accused No.1 by abusing his position in the institute and
manipulating the entire transactions. He had initially made Accused No.2 to be
appointed to the post of 'Supervisor' on temporary basis and thereafter to the
post of 'Technician' on permanent basis and thus both accused are guilty of all
the four charges. The Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused of the charge
under Section 120-B, which is also proved to hilt by the prosecution, therefore,
he would submit that the appeal filed by the prosecution in Crl.A.No.76 of 2015
has to be allowed. The very fact that Accused No.2 has obtained the job and also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:56:57 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.218 & 219 of 2014 and Crl.A.No.76 of 2015
drawing salary would satisfy the ingredients of Section 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 so as to attract the punishment as per
Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He would submit that
ICMR being the agency that was cheated, the offence of cheating is also made
out.
E. Discussion & Findings :
5. At the outset, it must be accepted that an error in appointment is a
service matter and employment can be terminated according to the rules and in
the manner known to law. Such action by itself would not amount to a criminal
offense. The ingredients of the criminal offense alleged have to be proved by the
prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused cannot be punished
based solely on suspicion, no matter how strong it may be.
5.1 The core argument of the accused is that, although accused No.1
exhibited some indiscretion by not recusing himself from the entire transactions,
simply handling the files routinely regarding selections involving his son does
not constitute abuse of office, especially not with dishonest intent, and there is
no loss to anyone. Regarding Accused No. 2, although his father was the head of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:56:57 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.218 & 219 of 2014 and Crl.A.No.76 of 2015
the organization, like other less deserving candidates hoping for organizational
benevolence, he merely took a chance and applied without making any
misrepresentation. It so happened that the organization's process proceeded as
expected: he was selected through written examination and interview, and
subsequently in the second post through an interview by a duly constituted
selection committee. If no offense or dishonesty can be linked to the selection
committee, then nothing can be attributed to the selectee.
5.2 In this context, let us consider the facts proven by the prosecution.
The first transaction involves recruitment for the project known as ‘Mortality
Survey in Andhra Pradesh and Orissa,’ and as per Ex.P5, they were to recruit 3
Supervisors, 15 Health Workers, 3 Field Attenders, and 2 Data Entry Operators.
The issued advertisement is marked as Ex.P6. It is noteworthy that, regarding
the post of Supervisor, a Post Graduate Degree is listed as essential, while
graduation is mentioned as desirable. This cannot be dismissed as a mere
mistake, since in row no. 2, the same graduate qualification repeated both in the
essential and desirable columns, whereas in Rows 3 and 4, the entries are
correctly stated. The sinister design becomes evident upon a careful reading of
the advertisement. It is also noteworthy that Accused No. 2 does not possess a
basic degree and was a direct postgraduate.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:56:57 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.218 & 219 of 2014 and Crl.A.No.76 of 2015
5.3 Accused No. 2 applied for the post of Supervisor. The covering letter
is marked as Ex.P22 and also includes his resume. In the resume, Accused No. 2
mentions his qualification as “M.A.” - suppressed that he does not possess the
qualification in Sociology. As shown in Ex.P-32, he holds an Open University
System MA in Public Administration from Annamalai University. It is common
to specify one’s subject of study. Accused No. 2 was aware that mentioning his
subject could prevent his application from being accepted by verifying officials
and therefore, he concealed this information. He also made a false claim that he
knew Telugu, despite never studying Telugu as a subject, nor was it his medium
of instruction. Further, mother tongue is Tamil. Hence, he made a false
statement in his resume. This is not an innocent mistake by an applicant but a
deliberate act.
5.4 Next is the scrutiny of the application. PW-12 Kolappan, has deposed
as follows:
“A1 was entrusted the work of scrutinising the applications based on
eligibility criteria and submit eligible candidates to the selection
committee at the time of interview.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:56:57 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.218 & 219 of 2014 and Crl.A.No.76 of 2015
5.5 Thus, Accused No. 1 wilfully did not weed out the application.
Additionally, it can be seen from Ex.P42, which is the list of 12 candidates
compiled and presented before the selection committee, that for every other
candidate with an MA degree, the subject is mentioned. However, for Sl.No. 7,
Vijay Anand (Accused No. 2), only 'MA' is mentioned.
5.6 What follows is the written examination. It was scheduled on
23/07/2005. PW-12, Kolappan, the Principal Investigator in charge of the
project, prepared the question papers and answer keys. He was on medical leave
from 13/06/2005 and therefore handed over the materials to Accused No.1 in a
floppy disk inside a cover, with instructions to keep it confidential and to print a
sufficient number of copies the day before the examination. It is evident that the
contents of the floppy disk were copied onto a computer, and according to
Ex.P56, the recovery proceedings report by the expert, the file relating to the
question paper for the post of Supervisor indicates a modified date of
17/07/2005, and for the Health Worker, a modified date of 19/07/2005, further
supporting the fact of printing. Mr. Hari, the learned Counsel, argued that the
path shown is that of a floppy disk file and does not demonstrate its opening.
Even if one agrees with that, if an official entrusted with the floppy disk and
instructed to keep it confidential has his son participating, it is expected that he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:56:57 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.218 & 219 of 2014 and Crl.A.No.76 of 2015
recuse himself. Additionally, any officer would maintain strict confidentiality as
instructed by the examiner. Accused No.1 did not keep the floppy disk
confidential until the day before the exam; he copied the contents to the
computer well in advance. At least by 17/07/2005, the floppy disk was inserted
into the computer, and the files were copied/dealt with in some manner, which is
in complete breach of trust that was reposed on Accused No.1.
5.7 It is the case of the prosecution that Accused No.1 had carried this
through the typist PW-5 Kouwsalya. PW-5 Kouwsalya is said to be present
during the recovery proceedings as per the independent official witness PW-18.
PW-5 was initially brought before the Learned Magistrate to give a statement
under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which was later marked during the trial as Ex.P20.
She only stated that she did not know anything about the case. However, the
prosecution proceeded to examine her as PW-5. She was treated as hostile and
was cross-examined by the prosecution. In the cross-examination, she finally
admitted that she took printouts of the relevant materials two days before the
examination. From the entire reading of the evidence, it is clear that Kouwsalya
is a liar and is completely unreliable, and from the beginning, she only parroted
that she did her job and knows nothing, including the fact that Accused No. 2
was the son of Accused No. 1.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:56:57 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.218 & 219 of 2014 and Crl.A.No.76 of 2015
5.8 PW-15, approver Ramadoss, deposed that he was handed the
question papers for the post of Health Worker, in which his son was
participating, on 19/07/2005, corroborated by Ex.P56 technical report. There is
no reason to disbelieve the approver's version, and his testimony inspires the
confidence of the Court. Above all, it is only two persons in the entire list of
participants who scored a perfect 25/25 in the written examination. One is
Accused No. 2 Vijay Anand and another is the son of PW-15, the approver,
namely Raja Selvasekar. It is argued that the question paper was so easy that it is
probable that Accused No. 2 scored a perfect 25. It is true that Ex.P64 contains
relatively simple and straightforward questions and answers. But that does not
mean that any person who attempts will get a perfect score. Even if the
questions are circulated to persons who are preparing questions at Group-III or
II level, though most of them would be above 80% or 90%, still getting a 100%
will be a rarity. In this case, it can be seen that of all the candidates, only
Accused No. 2 and the son of the approver alone got the perfect score.
Therefore, the argument that the question paper was so easy and the perfect
scores should not be doubted stands rejected. It is not the perfect score alone
which is taken as conclusive proof, but along with all the aforementioned facts
that are proven by the prosecution. Thus, there is no difficulty whatsoever in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:56:57 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.218 & 219 of 2014 and Crl.A.No.76 of 2015
holding that the Accused No. 2 cleared the written examination way ahead of
others only by cheating as the Accused No. 1, his own father, had supplied him
the question paper in advance.
5.9 Next, before the selection committee, vide Ex.P71, the qualification
of Accused No. 1 is mentioned simply as MA so that the selection committee
members do not note the ineligibility. Due to all the above fraud and cheating,
Accused No. 2 was initially appointed as a Supervisor on consolidated pay in
July 2005.
5.10 There exists a post, namely, Technician, which is a Group C
position in the ICMR. Originally, as per the recruitment rules Ex.P9, the
educational qualification required is 10 + 2 with one year of experience in the
field work related to health or health investigation training. The method of
recruitment is by direct recruitment from among candidates sponsored through
an employment exchange or through open advertisement. Vide Ex.P36, the
recruitment rules were amended, and the essential qualification now required is
‘G r a d u a t e with a certific at e of trainin g as a Par a M e d i c a l W o r k e r fro m a
rec o g n i z e d institute ,’ effective from 15/10/2003.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:56:57 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.218 & 219 of 2014 and Crl.A.No.76 of 2015
5.11 Emboldened by the success of their first mission, this time, Accused
No.1 and 2 decide to secure permanent posts. Despite a constitutional mandate
that direct recruitment must be done only through open advertisement, and in
gross violation of the recruitment rules and by playing fraud on the Constitution
of India, Accused No.1, on his own and without any direction from others,
issued Ex.P12 circular inviting applications only from the current staff of the
organization. It is fraudulently drafted to appear as if it is for regular staff, but it
also includes project staff on consolidated pay, as reproduced here:
“Those regular staff who fulfil the requisite qualification and willing
to be considered for the post and also staff recruited through
employment exchange/advertisement and working in the projects on
consolidated salary and possessing the following qualifications may
submit the application to this office through proper channel on or
before 07/11/2005.”
5.12 The essential educational qualification is mentioned as 10+2 with
one year of experience in fieldwork related to health or training in health
investigation. The amended qualification is described as desirable, that is, a
graduate with experience in fieldwork related to health or training in health
investigation. In any event, it can be seen that Accused No. 2 neither holds a
10+2 nor is a graduate. Yet he promptly applies.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:56:57 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.218 & 219 of 2014 and Crl.A.No.76 of 2015
5.13 Out of the 30 applications received, 15 were rejected after scrutiny,
including for not having the required educational qualification. However,
accused No.2 was shortlisted as an eligible candidate. Vide Ex.P13, it was
decided to fill the post through an interview alone, and the interview committee
selected accused No.2. PW-2 speaks about the representation of accused No.1
himself that he is authorised to issue such a circular calling for applications from
the staff alone. In Ex.P19, the qualification of accused No.2 is listed as MA and
a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering, and he was selected as the top-ranked
candidate, ranked No. 1. The approver’s son, Raja Selva Sekaran, was ranked
No. 4. Although five posts were advertised, nine persons were ultimately
selected.
5.14 Accused No. 2 had only studied up to the 10th standard and then
completed a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering. He has no background in
health or sociology. Additionally, he obtained an M.A. in Public Administration
through an open university, which cannot be considered for positions like
Supervisor, Technician, etc., firstly because it is not relevant and secondly
because it lacks the rigour of 10+2+3+2, making it invalid.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:56:57 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.218 & 219 of 2014 and Crl.A.No.76 of 2015
5.15 Thus, on both occasions, the conspiracy to deceive the organization
is evident. The actions of Accused No.1 are entirely dishonest and not typical of
handling a file routinely. At every stage, rules are violated and fraud perpetrated.
5.16 The argument that no person was cheated or no valuable security or
property was delivered is without any substance. With dishonest intent, a false
representation was made, and the job was obtained on both occasions from the
Organisation, namely ICMR. The ingredients of the offence under Section 420
IPC are clearly proven beyond reasonable doubt. Similarly, the question paper
was handed over by Accused No.1, is a complete breach of trust, and the
ingredients of Section 409 are also proven. Accused No.1 abused his office not
only for his son but also for the son of the Approver, and sought to adjust the
money owed by him to PW-5 in that regard. Thus, the ingredients of the offence
under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 are also proven.
5.17 The arguments relating to the sanction order are liable to be rejected.
There is application of mind and the sanction order was given on 30.12.2008.
Proper explanation has been rendered by the prosecution with reference to the
communication that is referred to as dated 19.12.2008. It should be seen that any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:56:57 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.218 & 219 of 2014 and Crl.A.No.76 of 2015
argument relating to the validity or the otherwise of the sanction order should be
made by duly demonstrating the prejudice that is caused. In the instant case, I do
not see any prejudice whatsoever that is caused to the accused, as such the plea
relating to the sanction order stands rejected.
5.18 With reference to the charge under Section 120 B read with 420, 409
of IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, from the above evidence, it can be concluded that the
accused No.1 and 2 have acted in tandem in a concerted manner with a
dishonest intention to cheat the organisation and secure an employment.
However, it cannot be said that the abuse of office including furnishing of
question paper to the son of approver, etc., is with conspiracy with the accused
No.2. Therefore, I am of the view that as far as the appeal filed on behalf of the
prosecution is concerned it has to be partly allowed in as much as I find the
appellants guilty for the offence under Section 120 B read with Section 420 of
IPC alone.
5.19 Now, coming to the question of sentence, as far as the accused No.1
is concerned, it is pleaded that the accused is ailing and he has to carry the urine
bag and is presently aged about 86 years. It has to be seen that the Trial Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:56:57 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.218 & 219 of 2014 and Crl.A.No.76 of 2015
itself had imposed a minimum sentence, the quantum of sentence cannot be
reduced. However, instead of Rigorous Imprisonment, the same shall be
modified as Simple Imprisonment.
5.20 As far as the accused No.2 is concerned, considering his age and the
part played by him, I am of the view that the sentence of imprisonment that is
imposed for the offence under Section 420 can be reduced as three months
Simple Imprisonment. As far as the offence under Section 120 B read with
Section 420 of IPC is concerned, both the accused can be awarded Simple
Imprisonment for a period of three months. In view of the fact that there is
minimum punishment for the accused No.1 and the punishment that is now
imposed in respect of Section 120 B of IPC is lesser that the same, separate
hearing as to the question of sentence is not held.
F. Some Observations:
6. The affairs of the organization (ICMR) shock the conscience of the
Court. It is not uncommon for children to pursue their parents' career path, as the
parents are there to guide them. But that should only be in a manner known to
law. When the Government of India spends taxpayers' money, in this case, a
Diploma in Mechanical Engineering candidate is pushed in as Supervisor and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:56:57 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.218 & 219 of 2014 and Crl.A.No.76 of 2015
then as Technician, in matters related to health work. The conduct of the
selection committees in not even checking the essential qualifications led to the
Accused 1 and 2 successfully committing the crime. Not only that, when the
offences came to light, the subsequent inquiry reports of the superior officers
trying to give a clean chit and hush things under the carpet show that all is not
well in the entire organization. There is complete ethical and moral illiteracy
among those involved. If the relevant service rules permit initiation of
disciplinary action even after retirement, this judgment shall be treated as the
starting point, ICMR shall initiate disciplinary action against the authorities
who submitted reports giving a clean chit to the transactions. The ICMR shall
also conduct a discreet audit to determine the number of kith and kin of their
own existing/former employees who are employed and whether they possess the
essential qualifications for the posts for which they were recruited. The learned
counsel appearing for the accused pointed out specific facts to bring to the
notice of the court that this is a regular practice in the organisation. As such, a
copy of this judgment is marked to the Director General, ICMR, New Delhi, and
the Secretary to the Government, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New
Delhi, for appropriate action.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:56:57 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.218 & 219 of 2014 and Crl.A.No.76 of 2015
G. The Result:
7. In the result:
(a) The Criminal Appeal Nos. 218 and 219 of 2014 and Crl.A.No.76
of 2015 stand Partly allowed on the following terms:
(b) The conviction of the accused No.1 in respect of the offence
under Section 420, 409 of IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Section
13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 stands
confirmed. The period of sentence of imprisonment for one year and
the fine amount shall stand confirmed. However, the sentence is
modified as one year Simple Imprisonment in respect of each of the
offences under Section 420, 409 of IPC and Section 13 (2) read with
Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and the
fine amount shall remain the same;
(c) The accused No.1 is found guilty and shall also undergo Simple
Imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under
Section 120 B read with 420 of IPC and to pay the fine of Rs.1,000/-
and in default of payment of fine, shall undergo further
imprisonment for a period of ten days;
(d) The conviction of the accused No.2 for the offence under Section
420 of IPC is confirmed. The sentence of imprisonment alone is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:56:57 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.218 & 219 of 2014 and Crl.A.No.76 of 2015
modified as that of three months Simple Imprisonment and the fine
amount shall remain the same;
(e) The accused No.2 shall also undergo Simple Imprisonment for a
period of three months for the offence under Section 120 B read
with 420 of IPC and to pay the fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of
ten days.
(f) The sentences to run concurrently and the period already
undergone shall be set off.
(g) Both the accused are granted eight weeks time from today to
surrender before the Trial Court to undergo the remainder of the
sentence.
(h) It is further submitted that Accused No.1 is aged about 86 years
and is required to carry an urinary bag. Considering his health
condition, the Jail authorities are directed to ensure that he receives
necessary medical attention. If hospitalization or continued
treatment is required, the same shall be provided, in accordance with
law.
Stn 07.10.2025
Neutral citation : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:56:57 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.218 & 219 of 2014 and Crl.A.No.76 of 2015
To
1. The IX Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases,
Chennai.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Special Police Establishment,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Anti Corruption Bureau,
Chennai - 600006.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
4. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:56:57 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.218 & 219 of 2014 and Crl.A.No.76 of 2015
D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
stn
Pre-delivery Judgment made
in Crl.A.Nos.218 & 219 of 2014
07.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:56:57 pm )
