9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 1178 - HC - Indian LawsMoney Laundering - cheating against gullible job seekers - recipients of money from the complainants and other individuals on the promise of obtaining them Government jobs as Drivers Conductors and Technicians in the State Transport Corporation - getting money from unlawful sources given for unlawful consideration - HELD THAT - Having gone through the records of the case available with this Court it appears that irregularities have been committed in the matter of recruitment of candidates at Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation during the period 2014-2015 at the relevant period of time one of the accused Mr.V.Senthil Balaji for the State Transport Corporation Minister at AIADMK Cabinet now functioning as Tamil Nadu State Minister for Electricity Prohibition and Excise other accused are his brother personal assistant and other State Transport Corporation officials and their associates thus it is alleged as a cash-for-job scam in recruitment and appointment at the State Transport Corporation. The undisputed fact is that all the criminal cases in FIR No.441 of 2015 (C.C.No.24 of 2021) FIR No.298 of 2017(C.C.No.19 of 2020) FIR No.344 of 2018 (C.C.No.25 of 2021) are inter connected with same recruitment irregularities in the appointment at State Transport Corporations during the year 2014 - 2015 and all the criminal cases involved in cash-for-job scam. My attention at this juncture was drawn by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in Crl. O.P. No.15122 of 2021 to the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Crl.A.No.1514 of 2022 (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1354 of 2022) P.Dharmaraj Vs. Shanmugam Ors. 2022 (9) TMI 1470 - SUPREME COURT wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court set aside the order of quashing the criminal case in C.C.No.25 of 2021 by this Court order dated 30.07.2021 in Crl. O.P. No.13374 of 2021 filed by Mr.Shanmugam (A3) in C.C.No.25 of 202 -. Further held that the remaining two criminal cases i.e. C.C.No.19 of 2020 and C.C.No.24 of 2021 are also with corruption allegation and all criminal complaints arose out of the very same cash-for-job scam as a matter of fact the State ought to have undertaken a comprehensive investigation into the entire scam. The reinvestigation to be started abinitio wiping out the earlier investigation altogether and to collect fresh evidence and material in the above criminal cases. Hence the Crl. O.P. No.15122 of 2021 in C.C.No.24 of 2021 for de-novo investigation along with C.C.No.19 of 2021 allowed - it is directed the investigation should be conducted ab-initio comprehensively without reference to the earlier investigation on record covering all the aspects in relation C.C.No.19 of 2020 and C.C.No.24 of 2021 including whether the offence under Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 are made out against the accused. The special Court before which C.C.No.19 of 2020 and C.C.No.24 of 2021 are pending will be at liberty to exercise power under Section 216 Cr.P.C if there is any reluctance on the part of the State/investigating Officer. Further on completion of investigation if the investigating agency makes out a case for cognizance of offence against the accused then the investigating agency of the predicate offence shall provide the relevant materials/documents to the Directorate of Enforcement so as to enable it to invoke its jurisdiction to commence its enquiry under the P.M.L Act thereafter. Application disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Discharge petition in C.C.No.19 of 2020. 2. Quashing of criminal proceedings in C.C.No.19 of 2020. 3. Quashing of criminal proceedings in C.C.No.24 of 2021. 4. De-novo investigation in C.C.No.24 of 2021. 5. Impleading petitions by various parties. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Discharge Petition in C.C.No.19 of 2020: The petitioner, Mr. V.Senthil Balaji, sought to set aside the order dismissing his discharge petition, arguing that the complaint against him was politically motivated and lacked material evidence. The court, however, found that there were prima facie sufficient grounds for proceeding against him. The court emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, the evidence is not to be meticulously examined but rather to see if there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Hence, the Criminal Revision Petition No.224 of 2021 was dismissed. 2. Quashing of Criminal Proceedings in C.C.No.19 of 2020: Mr. Sahayarajan (A3) sought to quash the proceedings on the ground of a settlement with the complainants. The court referred to the Supreme Court's guidelines in Gian Singh's case, which allows quashing of proceedings in cases of private nature where the parties have settled. However, since the nature of the offense'cash-for-job scam'had serious societal implications, the court found it inappropriate to quash the proceedings despite the settlement. Therefore, Crl. O.P. No.13914 of 2021 was dismissed. 3. Quashing of Criminal Proceedings in C.C.No.24 of 2021: Mr. Vetrichelvan (A10) sought to quash the proceedings against him, arguing that he was not involved in the recruitment process and that the sanction for prosecution was invalid. The court found that there were allegations and material in the final report suggesting his involvement. The court also noted that issues of sanction for prosecution should be tested during the trial. Thus, Crl. O.P. No.6621 of 2021 was dismissed. 4. De-novo Investigation in C.C.No.24 of 2021: Mr. Devasagayam, the complainant, sought a de-novo investigation, arguing that the initial investigation was incomplete and biased. The court noted that the investigation had significant lapses, including not obtaining a forensic analysis of manipulated interview marks. The Supreme Court's direction for further investigation in a related case (C.C.No.25 of 2021) was also considered. The court found that a comprehensive re-investigation was necessary to ensure a fair and unbiased investigation. Therefore, Crl. O.P. No.15122 of 2021 was allowed, directing a de-novo investigation in C.C.No.19 of 2020 and C.C.No.24 of 2021. 5. Impleading Petitions by Various Parties: Several parties, including the Directorate of Enforcement and Anti-Corruption Movement, sought to be impleaded in the proceedings. The court recognized the participatory rights of victims in criminal justice proceedings but found that the petitioners were not direct victims. The Directorate of Enforcement has independent jurisdiction under the PML Act. Therefore, all impleading petitions were dismissed. Conclusion: The court dismissed the petitions seeking discharge and quashing of proceedings, emphasizing the need for a fair trial. It allowed a de-novo investigation in C.C.No.19 of 2020 and C.C.No.24 of 2021 to ensure a comprehensive and unbiased investigation. All impleading petitions were dismissed, maintaining the focus on the main issues.
|
