[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
S.Angusamy vs State Of Tamilnadu on 18 February, 2026
CRL RC(MD). No.146 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.146 of 2026
and Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.1743 and 1745 of 2026
S.Angusamy ... Petitioner/Accused No.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 Section 442 of BNSS to call for
the order and records in connection with order dated 13.08.2025 in
Crl.M.P.No.18 of 2025 in Spl.Case No.9/2023 on the file of the Special
Court for Trial of Cases under prevention of corruption Act, Tirunelveli.
For Petitioner : 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 05:18:25 pm )
CRL RC(MD). No.146 of 2026
ORDER
This Criminal Revision is filed to set aside the order dated
13.08.2025 dismissing the discharge petition filed by the petitioner in
Crl.M.P.No.18 of 2025 in S.C.No.9 of 2023 to discharge the petitioner
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 petitioner had issued transfer order dated 07.11.2012 to
two teachers namely, S.Jeyakumar and S.Suganthi Brisilla, by
overlooking that the defacto complainant was entitled for preference for
transfer on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.(1D).No.259 dated 09.09.2011,
G.O.Ms.No.(1D)158, dated 18.05.2012 School Education, E1
Department dated 28.04.2010. The defacto complainant had stated that
the transfer order passed by the petitioner was illegal since it was issued
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 05:18:25 pm )
for extraneous reasons and by abusing the official position of the
petitioner.
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 petitioner.
4. The allegations in the charge sheet are that the petitioner,
during his tenure as public servant as defined under Section 2(c) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act and in his capacity as the Superintendent,
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 petitioner during the relevant period issued
transfer orders to two ineligible teachers namely, S.Jeyakumar and
S.Suganthi Brisilla by creating incorrect records and defying
contemporaneous Government orders; The petitioner illegally granted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 05:18:25 pm )
transfer order to the two ineligible teachers, which is a valuable thing and
thereby, the petitioner/accused No.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.9
of 2023. Before the commencement of trial, the petitioner 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 petitioner has filed the above Criminal Revision.
6. The respondent filed a counter denying all the averments raised
in the petitioner's affidavit. The respondent stated that there was
un-rebuttable primary documentary evidence in the form of the original
files relating to the transfer orders of the Government issued to ineligible
teachers by the accused/petitioner. The respondent further stated that the
original files reveal that the transfer orders are in clear violation of
contemporaneous orders of the Government and as such illegal. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 05:18:25 pm )
respondent further stated that all the ingredients of Sections 120-B, 167,
34 IPC and the offence of criminal misconduct by public servant
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 05:18:25 pm )
was filed only to protract the proceedings. The respondent concluded by
stating that in the absence of any jurisdictional error, interference by this
Court was not warranted.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 05:18:25 pm )
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and since the said provision was not
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/petitioner 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/petitioner was that he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 05:18:25 pm )
had issued illegal transfer order to the Teachers in violation of the
Government orders. The trial court found that the accused/petitioner 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 petitioner 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 his official
position as public servant 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 petitioner's 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 petitioner that he had issued the transfer
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 05:18:25 pm )
orders as per the procedure and no offence was committed by him was a
matter to be 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/petitioner 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 05:18:25 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
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 order. 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 him in respect of the
offence committed by him.
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 05:18:25 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 05:18:25 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 05:18:25 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 petitioner has
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 petitioner 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 05:18:25 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 05:18:25 pm )
N.MALA., J
CM
amd Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.1743 and 1745 of 2026
18.02.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 05:18:25 pm )
