[Cites 17, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
P.Mariappan vs State Of Tamilnadu on 18 February, 2026
CRL RC(MD). No.138 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 18.02.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALA
CRL RC(MD). No.138 of 2026
and Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.1716 and 1718 of 2026
1.P.Mariappan
2.A.Mala
3.M.Chinnapandi ... Petitioners/Accused 1 to 3
Vs
State of Tamilnadu
rep. By Inspector of Police,,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption
Special Police Station,
Tirunelveli District
Crime No.3 of 2015 ... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER :- This revision is filed under Sections 438 r/w 442 of BNSS
to call for the order and records in connection with order dated
13.08.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.10 of 2025 in Spl.Case No.1/2023 on the file
of the Special Court for Trial of Cases under prevention of corruption
Act, Tirunelveli.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Titus
For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 05:18:24 pm )
CRL RC(MD). No.138 of 2026
ORDER
This Criminal Revision is filed to set aside the order dated
13.08.2025 dismissing the discharge petition filed by the petitioners in
Crl.M.P.No.10 of 2025 in S.C.No.1 of 2023 to discharge the petitioners
from the alleged offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 167 r/w 34
IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)(i)(ii)(iii) of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988, in the charge sheet.
2. The brief case of the prosecution:
The defacto complainant by name, C.Kipson, gave a complaint
stating that the petitioners had issued transfer order dated 24.05.2010 to
two teachers namely, M.Maria Krency and P.S.Shanthi, by overlooking
that the defacto complainant was entitled for preference for transfer on
the basis of the G.O.Ms.No.(1D)131, School Education, E1 Department
dated 28.04.2010. The defacto complainant had stated that the transfer
order passed by the petitioners was illegal since it was issued for
extraneous reasons and by abusing the official position of the petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 05:18:24 pm )
3. Based on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, an
investigation was conducted and on completion of investigation, a final
report in the form of a charge sheet was filed before the Special Court for
Exclusive of trial of Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
against the revision petitioners.
4. The allegations in the charge sheet are that the petitioners,
during their tenure as public servants as defined under Section 2(c) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act and in their capacity as the District
Elementary Educational Officer, the Assistant and the Superintendent
respectively, while dealing with the transfer of teachers, entered into
criminal conspiracy; In pursuance of such criminal conspiracy, the
accused failed to issue transfer order to the defacto complainant namely,
C.Kipson on the basis of seniority; The petitioners during the relevant
period issued transfer orders to two ineligible teachers namely M.Maria
Krency and P.S.Shanthi by creating incorrect records and defying
contemporaneous Government orders; The petitioners illegally granted
transfer orders to the two ineligible teachers, which is a valuable thing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 05:18:24 pm )
and thereby, the petitioners 1 to 3/accused 1 to 3 committed the offences
punishable under Sections 120-B, 167 r/w 34 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w
13(1)(d)(i)(ii)(iii) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
5. The Special Court for exclusive trial of Cases of Prevention of
Corruption Act, Tirunelveli, took up the charge sheet on file as S.C.No.1
of 2023. Before the commencement of trial, the petitioners filed a
discharge petition under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. The trial court dismissed
the petition by order dated 13.08.2025. Aggrieved by the order of the
trial court, the petitioners have filed the above Criminal Revision.
6. The respondent filed a counter denying all the averments raised
in the petitioners' affidavit. The respondent stated that there was
un-rebuttable primary documentary evidence in the form of the original
files relating to the transfer order of the Government issued to ineligible
teachers by the accused/petitioners. The respondent further stated that the
original files reveal that the transfer order is in clear violation of
contemporaneous orders of the Government and as such illegal. The
respondent further stated that all the ingredients of Sections 120-B, 167,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 05:18:24 pm )
34 IPC and the offence of criminal misconduct by public servants
punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, were present in the case.
7. The respondent, by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu, represented by Inspector of
Police vs. N.Suresh Rajan & others, submitted that at the stage of
framing of charge, the Court is required to evaluate the materials and
documents with a view to finding out if the facts emerging there from
taken at their face value, disclosed the existence of all the ingredients
constituting the alleged offence. The respondent further stated that at the
stage of framing of charges, the Court was only required to go into the
probative value of the material on record and is not expected to delve
deep into the evidence. The respondent also stated that it is settled legal
position that the accused cannot seek discharge merely on disputed
questions of fact. The respondent stated that all the grounds raised in the
revision were identical to those raised before the trial court, which were
rightly rejected by it. The respondent also stated that the revision itself
was filed only to protract the proceedings. The respondent concluded by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 05:18:24 pm )
stating that in the absence of any jurisdictional error, interference by this
Court was not warranted.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
respondent police failed to note that the defacto complainant challenged
the rejection letter dated 18.06.2010 in WP(MD)No.9227 of 2010 and
later, relinquished the challenge by restricting his relief to a
consideration of his application for transfer dated 30.05.2010. The
learned counsel submitted that this vital fact was overlooked by the
respondent police and therefore, a wrong charge sheet came to be filed.
The learned counsel further submitted that the transfer order was a valid
document and since the offence under Section 167 IPC was not made
out, the charge sheet was liable to be quashed. The learned counsel
further submitted that the ingredients of Sections 120(b) and 34 IPC and
the provisions of Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,
were not made out in the facts of the case and as such, the charge sheet
deserved to be quashed. The learned counsel further submitted that the
charge sheet referred to Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)(i)(ii)(iii) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and since the said provision was not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 05:18:24 pm )
available in the Act itself, the charge sheet deserved to be quashed. For
the aforesaid reasons, the learned counsel prayed that the revision be
allowed and the charge sheet be quashed.
9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf
of the respondent, reiterated the contentions raised in the counter
affidavit and submitted that in the instant case there was sufficient oral
and documentary evidence available on record for framing the charges
against the accused/petitioners and therefore, the prosecution, having
made out a prima facie case, by establishing the existence of factual
ingredients constituting the offences, this Court exercising revisional
jurisdiction cannot make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the
matter to interfere with the well considered order of the trial court.
10. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
11. The trial court, on appreciation of the entire materials on
record, found that the charge against the accused/petitioners was that
they had issued illegal transfer order to the Teachers in violation of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 05:18:24 pm )
Government orders. The trial court found that the accused/petitioners had
suppressed the name of the defacto complainant namely, C.Kipson, who
was the eligible applicant. The trial Court, after considering the entire
materials on record, found that the accused committed the offences under
Sections 120-B, 167 and 34 IPC and Section 13(2) rw 13(1)(d)(i)(ii)(iii)
of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, by misusing their official position
as public servants and by issuing illegal transfer orders in violation of
G.O.Nos.145, 131, 259, 158, 129 and 139 and the District Office Manual
Rule 41. The trial court also rejected the petitioners' plea that there was
an inordinate delay between filing of FIR and the charge sheet. The trial
court rejected the plea of limitation by holding that under Section 468
Cr.P.C, the power of taking cognizance after the period of limitation was
restricted to the offences punishable for imprisonment for a period
exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. The trial court also
found that the transfer orders were issued for administrative exigency
without any complaint being filed against the teachers and therefore held
that a prima facie case was made out. The trial court also found that the
contention of the petitioners that they had issued the transfer order as per
the procedure and no offence was committed by them was a matter to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 05:18:24 pm )
considered at the time of trial, since the court at the stage of discharge
was not bound to conduct a mini trial. The trial court concluded that the
materials on record clearly established that a prima facie case against the
accused/petitioners was made out and therefore, the application for
discharge deserved to be rejected.
12. This Court finds absolutely no perversity, illegality or
jurisdictional error to interfere with the trial court's order. The trial court
has considered the materials placed before it in a proper perspective and
found that the prosecution had made out a prima facie case for
presuming that the offence was committed. As rightly pointed out by the
trial court, at the stage of discharge the Court cannot conduct a mini trial,
or a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter, to weigh the
evidence and conduct a trial. On the basis of the entire materials, the trial
court rightly found that all the grounds raised in the discharge petition
could only be considered during trial when the witnesses and the
documents would be examined in detail.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 05:18:24 pm )
13. The records reveal that the charge against the accused is that,
they conspired together and in violation of G.O.Nos.145, 131, 259, 158,
129 and 139 and the District Office Manual Rule 41, issued illegal
transfer orders to ineligible persons by suppressing the defacto
complainant's priority. The records prima facie show that the
accused/petitioners had violated the aforesaid Government orders. There
is a possibility that if the District Office Manual was followed in letter
and spirit, the transferees may not have successfully got the transfer
orders. All the grounds raised in the revision petition relates to the merits
of the matter and the defenses raised therein can be considered only at
the time of trial. Therefore, this Court is of the view that prima facie
materials on record create a strong suspicion leading to a presumptive
opinion that there exists factual ingredients for constituting the offence
alleged against the accused justifying the framing of charge against them
in respect of the offence committed by them.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again held that at the
stage of considering the discharge petition only probative value of the
materials have to be gone into to find out if prima facie case for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 05:18:24 pm )
proceeding against the accused was made out and that a roving enquiry
into the weightage of evidence should not be undertaken at that stage.
Useful reference can be made in this regard to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in in State of Tamil Nadu, represented by
Inspector of Police vs. N.Suresh Rajan & others. In the said judgment,
the Supreme Court held as follows:
''29. We have bestowed our consideration to the rival
submissions and the submissions made by Mr Ranjit Kumar
commend us. True it is that at the time of consideration of the
applications for discharge, the court cannot act as a mouthpiece
of the prosecution or act as a post office and may sift evidence
in order to find out whether or not the allegations made are
groundless so as to pass an order of discharge. It is trite that at
the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the
court has to proceed with an assumption that the materials
brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate the
said materials and documents with a view to find out whether
the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose
the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged
offence. At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be
gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the
matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a
conviction. ''
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 05:18:24 pm )
15. So also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan vs.
Ashok Kumar Kashyap reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 314
reiterated the settled position that evaluation of evidence is not
permissible at the stage of considering the application for discharge. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment held as follows:
"23. In the case of P. Vijayan (supra), this Court had an
occasion to consider Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. What is required
to be considered at the time of framing of the charge and/or
considering the has been considered discharge application
elaborately in the said decision. It is observed and held that at
the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the
evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused. It is observed that in
other words, the sufficiency of grounds would take within its
fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the
documents produced before the Court which ex facie disclose
that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as
to frame a charge against him. It is further observed that if the
Judge comes to a conclusion that there is sufficient ground to
proceed, he will frame a charge under Section 228 Cr.P.C.. if
not, he will discharge the accused. It is further observed that
while exercising its judicial mind to the facts of the case in order
to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 05:18:24 pm )
prosecution, it is not necessary for the court to enter into the
pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of
evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the
court, after the trial starts."
16. In the same case, while referring to the revisional jurisdiction
of the High Court in a discharge application, it was held that the
evaluation of evidence on record was beyond the scope of revisional
jurisdiction of the High Court. This Court finds that the petitioners have
miserably failed to point out the patent irregularity in the trial court's
order warranting interference by this Court. The arguments of the learned
counsel for the petitioners do not satisfy this Court in the revisional
jurisdiction for setting aside the order of the trial court.
17. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds no merit in the
revision and hence, the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
18.02.2026
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
CM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 05:18:24 pm )
To,
1. Inspector of Police,,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption
Special Police Station,
Tirunelveli District
2.The Special Court
for Trial of Cases under prevention of corruption Act,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Benchof Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 05:18:24 pm )
N.MALA., J
CM
amd Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.1716 and 1718 of 2026
18.02.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 05:18:24 pm )
