2022 (11) TMI 1501 - HC - Indian Laws

Criminal Conspiracy - criminal breach of trust - corruption - Sections 120(B) 409 IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and 109 IPC - HELD THAT - The Hon'ble Apex Court in plethora of decisions, had held that the primary consideration at the stage of framing of charge is the test of existence of a prima facie case, and at this stage, the probative value of materials on record is not to be gone into. Recently in the case of State through Deputy Superintendent of Police Versus R.Soundirarasu etc., 2022 (9) TMI 1490 - SUPREME COURT , the Hon'ble Apex Court had held under what circumstances, the discharge petition can be entertained. The revisional power can only be exercised if there is any legal bar to the continuance of the proceedings or if the facts as stated in the charge sheet are taken to be true on their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged. In this case, on consideration of the statement of the witnesses and documents produced by the prosecution, this Court finds that there are sufficient ground for proceeding against A4 A5 and further, there are materials against A2 A6 as well. Hence, the question of quashing the case does not arise at all. The circumstances emerging from the record of the case, indicated the involvement of the accused persons in the alleged offence. Considering the fact the trial where the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 have to be conducted and concluded, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.14 of 2019 against A2 and A6. Accordingly, both Criminal Original Petition stand dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of proceedings against A2 and A6 in C.C.No.14 of 2019.
2. Setting aside the order dated 20.12.2019 against A4 and A5 in C.C.No.14 of 2019.
3. Allegations and evidence regarding criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust, and corruption.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of Proceedings Against A2 and A6:
A2 and A6 sought to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.14 of 2019. A2 argued that the plot No.540 was allotted to her daughter and later to herself, following all procedural requirements, and that no pecuniary loss was suffered by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (TNHB) or the Government. A2 also contended that the case was motivated by vengeance due to actions taken by her husband, M.S.Jaffar Sait, against the complainant. A6, the former Minister for Housing, argued that he merely concurred with the recommendations of the Secretary and other officials, and there was no conspiracy or violation of procedures.

The Court found that A2 and A6 were involved in a pre-determined conspiracy to obtain the plot under the Government Discretionary Quota (GDQ) without proper verification of eligibility. The Court noted that the plot was initially allotted to M.S.Jaffar Sait, then to his daughter, and finally to A2 within a short period, indicating a violation of public duty. The Court held that the allegations and evidence of conspiracy and corruption needed to be decided during the trial, and thus, quashing the proceedings was not appropriate.

2. Setting Aside the Order Against A4 and A5:
A4 and A5 sought to set aside the order dated 20.12.2019, which dismissed their discharge petitions. A4, the Secretary to the then Chief Minister, argued that he merely forwarded A2's application for GDQ allotment and that there was no loss to the TNHB or the Government. A5, A4's son, argued that he was involved in social work and applied for the plot under GDQ, and there was no conspiracy or illegal advantage.

The Court found that A4, using his official position, made authoritative endorsements on A2's application, facilitating the allotment without proper verification. A5, being A4's son, received the plot under GDQ without supporting documents, and both A4 and A5 entered into joint venture agreements for commercial development of the plots, violating the lease-cum-sale agreement conditions. The Court held that there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against A4 and A5, and thus, the order dismissing their discharge petitions was affirmed.

3. Allegations and Evidence:
The case involved allegations of criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust, and corruption in the allotment of plots under GDQ. The prosecution presented evidence that A2, A4, A5, and A6 conspired to obtain and allot plots without proper verification of eligibility, causing pecuniary advantage to A2 and A5. Witness statements and documents indicated that A4 and A6 used their official positions to facilitate the allotments, and A2 and A5 entered into joint venture agreements for commercial development, violating the conditions of the lease-cum-sale agreements.

The Court noted that the primary consideration at the stage of framing charges is the existence of a prima facie case, and the probative value of the materials is not to be evaluated at this stage. The Court held that the allegations and evidence presented by the prosecution were sufficient to proceed with the trial, and thus, the petitions to quash the proceedings and discharge the accused were dismissed.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the petitions filed by A2, A4, A5, and A6, affirming the trial court's orders and holding that the allegations and evidence of conspiracy, breach of trust, and corruption needed to be decided during the trial. The trial court was directed to proceed with the trial uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.

← Previous Next →