9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1501X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ained. 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. - THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR For Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.30357 of 2019 : Mr.I.Subramaniam, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Mubarak Ahmad, M/s.Ahmad Associates For Petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7-T.Udhayakumar, Land Mark Construction, Chennai is a private individual. As per G.O.Ms.No.1574/H UD Department, dated 24.12.1991, 15% of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (TNHB) house sites/houses/flats are marked for the allotment of the Government under the discretionary quota which is called as GDQ, i.e., Government Discretionary Quota. As per G.O.Ms.No.88/H UD Department, dated 20.05.2003, the special workers and responsible persons in the society who have done excellent job in the field of arts/science/literature/economic/public administration/sports etc., (impeachable honest Government servant will come under the category of people who have excelled in public administration) are the categories among the eligible group to get allotment under 15% of GDQ. (ii)During the period between 2008 and 2010 at Chennai and other places, A1 to A7 were parties to the criminal conspiracy having agreed to commit and abet each other in commission of offence of criminal breach of trust and offence of criminal misconduct in connection with the allotment of GDQ plots and thereby, M.S.Jaffar Sait and his family and A5, son of A4 were allotted plots in survey No.76 in part at Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... positive endorsement as 'the request may kindly be complied with. Action may please be taken to issue orders'. This application was forwarded to LW9-K.Surjit K.Choudhry, the then Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai, who consulted A6 in this matter. As per the direction of A6, the file was processed in favour of A2 and it was approved by A6 and by G.O.Ms.No.143 H UD Department, dated 05.06.2009, the said plot was allotted to A2. (iv)In furtherance to the criminal conspiracy, A2 made agreement with A7-T.Udhayakumar, Land Mark Construction on 08.10.2009 and as per agreement, A2 gave the said plot to A7, for which, A2 received the amount of Rs.1,27,23,000/- and a flat comprising 2280 sq.ft valued around Rs.1,48,59,000/-. Similarly, A5 made application on 27.11.2006 to A6 requesting for GDQ allotment of plot No.S4 at Thiruvallur Nagar at Thiruvanmiyur under the guise of social worker without enclosing any documentary evidence. On the advice of LW7, the then Assistant Section Officer and Section Officer placed note file suggesting plot No.538 (4816 sq.ft) in suvey No.76 part of Kamarajar Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur can be allotted under GDQ. The above said of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08 and 30.03.2009. After a year, on the request of A2's daughter, the allotment was cancelled deducting a sum of Rs.14,03,040/- towards penal charges by the TNHB and only a sum of Rs.93,73,963/- was refunded by TNHB. Subsequently, the petitioner made fresh application for allotment of the said plot which became vacant on cancellation of the previous allotment in the name of her daughter. On 05.06.2009, the G.O(2D)No.143 was issued for the allotment of plot No.540 in the name of A2. The provisional allotment letter was issued on 05.08.2009 in the name of A2 with enhanced price of Rs.1,26,60,500/-. On 19.06.2009, the TNHB sent a letter to the Executive Engineer, Besant Nagar Division asking him to handover the possession of the allotted plot No.540 to A2 and to get acknowledgement from her for taking possession of the plot. Subsequent to the said letter of handing over possession, the petitioner entered into a joint venture agreement with A7 on 08.10.2009 as the allottee of the said plot. Thereafter, on 09.10.2009, a General Power of Attorney was executed by the petitioner in the name of A7 enabling A7 for liaising with TNHB and other authorities to complete the formalities. Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 37599 of 2016, wherein this Court, by order, dated 26.10.2016 stayed all further proceedings pursuant to the said Government Order. (iii)The prosecution has projected the case that the period of commission of offence is between 2008 and 2010, but in the final report, the respondent had gone beyond the period of offence and investigated the case. The charge under Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is in violation of the statutory bar under the Proviso to Section 23 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is not maintainable since there is no valuable thing or pecuniary advantage obtained through corrupt/illegal means or by abusing the position of A2's husband as a public servant. In fact, when the allotment of plot No.540 in the name of A2's daughter was cancelled, a sum of Rs.14,03,040/- was deducted as penal interest by the TNHB. Subsequently, A2 purchased the property, higher than the price paid by A2's daughter for the same plot. The respondent Police filed the charge sheet before the Special Court for the Trial of Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... retary to Government, Housing Urban Development Department stating that the plots which are available is kept open and it is very difficult to protect the plots from encroacher's and recommended the Government to soon allot the plots under GDQ, so that the revenue can be realized by the TNHB. He further submitted that A2 submitted his application for allotment of plot No.540, which was received by A4. The request of A2 was processed at the Secretariat and note file was put up by the then Assistant Section Officer, Section Officer. After scrutiny and verification of file, it passed through various level of officers and finally, the Secretary approved the same. None of the officials gave any contra opinion or objection in allotment of plot No.540 to A2 under GDQ. It is the duty of the officials and staffs to verify eligibility and other particular of the applicant while dealing with the file. In this case, only after following the procedures, the file was sent to the concerned Minister/A6 for approval. (ii)He further submitted that note file of A2 was circulated to A6, who signed the same concurring with the Principal Secretary and others recommendation. Likewise, on the note fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erials produced, it is seen that there is no averments against A6 that he violated any condition stipulated for allotment of plots under GDQ. The Secretary, a Senior I.A.S., officer from Housing and Urban Development Department approved the request of A2 and A5, on whose approval, A6 made his concurrence, other than that nothing more. Strangely, the Secretaries and other officials, who dealt with the files, are all shown as witnesses. On the other hand, A6 has been made as an accused. Further, it is not the case that A6 met any of the applicant or any of the officials before concurring with the note file of A2 and A5. The plots under the Discretionary Quota was introduced in the year 1995 and further four more allotments made in the said layout under GDQ. For allotment of A2 and A5 alone, the case now projected as though it is case of conspiracy and A6 allotted plots to A2 and A5. (iv)The projection of the prosecution is that A2's husband M.S.Jaffar Sait, the then Inspector General of Police (Intelligence) and A5's father A4, the then Secretary to the then Chief Minister were close to the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. As a political vendetta, the above case has been re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A7 and thereafter, what had happened after allotment of plots to allottees, that to, by outright sale, A6 has no role. He further submitted that there is no material produced by the prosecution to show that A6 caused deliberate wrongful loss to TNHB by obtaining pecuniary advantage and abusing his official position as public servant. In the absence of the same, the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 would not attract. The allegation against A6 is on the allotment of GDQ, which is an official duty of A6. Hence, the sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., is necessary to initiate prosecution against A6, but in this case, no such sanction obtained from the competent authority. Assailing these points, he prayed for quashing of the proceedings against A6. 7.The submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for A4 in Crl.R.C.No.147 of 2020 are as follows:- (i)The learned Senior Counsel submitted that A4 was employed as Secretary to then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Chennai on re-employment, vide G.O.Rt.No.1874, dated 13.05.2006. A4 was allocated with 11 subjects including the Housing and Urban Development Department. A4 being the Secretary to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... retired Government servant. (iii)He further submitted that the sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., is a condition precedent to prosecute any person who is or was a public servant who had done any act in discharge of his official duty. In the absence of the sanction, taking cognizance of the case against A4 is improper and bad in law. Even according to the prosecution, the plot was allotted to A2 under GDQ by the Principal Secretary, who is the competent authority after complying with the required procedure and also after getting due approval from A6. The case against A3-K.Murugaiya, the then Executive Engineer, Besant Nagar Division, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai was quashed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.6824 of 2017 on 24.10.2019, wherein this Court had held that 'no loss was sustained by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and the allotment are of Government Discretionary Quota made through Government Orders.' Aggrieved against the same, the respondent filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.P(Criminal)Diary No.8255 of 2021 and the same was dismissed on 01.10.2021 confirming the order of this Court, dated 24.10.2019. He further submitted that the trial Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve considered the positive statements given by the Secretary, Joint Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Department, Section Officer and Assistant Section Officer from Secretariat including the Secretary, Chief Engineer and Executive Engineer and others from the TNHB, who all dealt with the file of allotment of A2. Hence, he prayed for setting aside the order of the trial Court, dated 20.12.2019 dismissing his discharge petition. 8.The submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for A5 in Crl.R.C.No.527 of 2020 are as follows:- (i)The learned Senior Counsel submitted that A5 was involved in Social Welfare Association named K.K.Nagar Apoorva Women Welfare Association and rendered social service during the Tsunami disaster. As early as on 27.11.2006, A5 applied to the Minister of Housing Slum Clearance requesting for allotment of plot No.S4 at Kamarajar Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur under GDQ. Much later, on 03.04.2008, the Section Officer, Housing Department issued a note for circulation seeking permission of the concerned Minister for the allotment of plot No.538 in survey No.76 part of Kamaraj Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur. The note file was approved by LW7- K.N.Krishnasamy, Joint Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide order No.26011/33/2011-IPS.II, dated 29.11.2013 declined sanction for prosecution against M.S.Jaffar Sait. Despite sanction order was declined, the respondent Police failed to inform the trial Court about the same. Only after five years, the said order was produced by way of memo to the trial Court. This Court taking cognizance of the same, quashed the proceedings against M.S.Jaffar Sait in Crl.O.P.No.13711 of 2019, dated 23.05.2019. Aggrieved against the same, the defacto complainant A.Shankar preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.P(Criminal) Diary No.20404/2019 and the same was dismissed confirming the order of this Court, dated 23.05.2019. The case against A3- K.Murugaiya, the then Executive Engineer, Besant Nagar Division, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai was quashed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.6824 of 2017 on 24.10.2019, wherein this Court had held that 'no loss was sustained by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and the allotment are of Government Discretionary Quota made through Government Orders.' Aggrieved against the same, the respondent filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.P(Criminal)Diary No.8255 of 2021 and the same was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mplaint of the defacto complainant A.Shankar, a case in Crime No.7/AC/2011 was registered, for offence under Sections 120(B) 420 of IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 109 of IPC, by the respondent Police. During the course of investigation, additional facts of accused, involvement of criminal conspiracy and criminal breach of trust by the public servant and others revealed against the accused. After completion of investigation, charge sheet filed against seven persons for offence under Sections 120(B), 409 and 420 of IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and 109 IPC, before the trial Court. He further submitted that A2 applied for plot No.540 under GDQ in survey No.76 in part at Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai addressed to then Minister for Housing/A6, Tamil Nadu without enclosing any evidence to prove that she was a social worker. A4 received the application of A2 on 04.06.2009 made endorsement that the request may kindly be complied with. Action may please be taken to issue orders . A4 is the Former Secretary to the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, hence, the credential and qualification o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eement. A2 obtained sale deed on 25.02.2010. After vide adverse publicity and fear of getting exposed, she attempted to surrender the plot to TNHB on 18.02.2011 which is almost one year after the allotment. He further submitted that the plot No.540 was attached vide G.O.Ms.No.651, dated 05.09.2012. The contention of A2 that the attachment proceedings has been stayed by this Court in W.P.No.37599 of 2016, dated 26.10.2016 is not correct for the reason that the property is still attached as per G.O.Ms.No.651, dated 05.09.2012. The contention of A2 that the case against her husband M.S.Jaffar Sait was quashed by this Court for the reason that the sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was not accorded by the competent authority, will no way be helpful to the case of A2. Likewise, the petitioner s contention that the charge under Section 13(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 pertaining to A5 was in the year 2006 and the charge against A5 is in violation of statutory bar under the Proviso to Section 23 of the Act is not correct and denied. (iii)He further submitted that quashing the case against A3 would not mean that A2 did not com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... struction of multi-storey residential complex in TNHB land comprising of plot No.538. The allotment of plot No.538 was made in favour of A5 only on enamoured clout and influence of A4. This is proved by the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., of LW6- R.Sellamuthu, former Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai. A5 having entered into lease-cum-sale agreement with the TNHB knowing well of the condition that the lessee purchaser shall not be entitled to assign, sublet, or part with the possession of the whole or any part of the property without the previous permission in writing of the lessorvendor, has further with criminal intent, having conspired with A2, entered into a joint venture agreement with A7. That apart, A5 has also made a joint development agreement with A7 on 08.04.2010 for constructing flats in the above said plot and thereby, A5 got pecuniary advantage of Rs.45,49,300/- and two flats measuring 1515 sq.ft and 2000 sq.ft worth about 2,48,10,500/- (ii)He further submitted that A5 does not qualify under any of the categories as per G.O.Ms.No.88 H UD, dated 20.05.2003. Since A4 was the retired from the Government, no sanction is required to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owed in the allotment of plots/flats/houses under GDQ scheme. As per G.O.Ms.No.399 Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 25.01.1979, the TNHB allotted plots/flats/Houses to the public by calling for application and by conducting a lot. As per Government Memo NO.21244/K2/79-1, dated 23.01.1979 orders were issued for the allotment of 10% of the plots/flats/houses in all schemes developed by TNHB under GDQ. He further submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.704 Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 17.08.1981, the Government decided that only those who have applied to the TNHB in the prescribed application form for a particular scheme and who are not successful in the lots down for allotment in that scheme are eligible for allotment by the Government under their 10% discretionary quota. The G.O.Ms.No.1574 Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 24.12.1991 categorised the eligibility for GDQ allotment, Government increased the GDQ allotment from 10% and directed that 15% discretionary quota be open to all people. A6, the then Minister for Housing without verifying the requisite documents in allotting the plots under GDQ, approved the plots to A2 A5 and caused illega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in the year 2006, it was kept pending. Since his father/A4 was the Secretary to the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, he was given eleven subjects including the Housing and Urban Development Department, A5's application was cleared and plot No.538 was allotted to him under GDQ without any supporting documents. In the course of same transaction, A5 entered into the joint venture agreement with A7 for development of the plot allotted to him under GDQ. The allotment of plot under GDQ is only for residential and not for any commercial purpose. With the joint venture agreement, A2 and A5 were benefited. These aspects ought to have been considered by A6 before exercising its discretion allotment of plots in favour of A2 and A5. For the reasons best known, without any verification, A6 allotted the plots to A2 and A5 under GDQ. He further submitted that A6 being the Senior Minister, conveniently issued orders to process the note files without any delay. The witnesses from the Housing and Urban Development Department confirmed that it was on the oral instruction of A6, the note files of A2 and A5 for allotment under GDQ were processed without any verification. Added to it, two prime ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he requested for cancellation of the allotment in her name, which was cancelled on 08.05.2009 and subsequently, A2, wife of M.S.Jaffar Sait applied for allotment of same vacant plot No.540 under GDQ on 02.06.2009. A4 received the said application on 04.06.2009 and made authoritative endorsement and immediately forwarded the same to the witness Surjit K.Choudhry, I.A.S., with a direction to consult the then Minister/A6 in this matter. As per direction, A6 processed the note file and approved the same and by G.O.Ms.No.143 Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 05.06.2009, the said plot was allotted to A2. On 05.06.2009, A6 approved the note file and by G.O.Ms.No.143 Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 05.06.2009, the said plot was allotted to A2. This itself proves that unless there is a predetermined meeting of mind, no application would be dealt in such manner, that to within four days. (ii)He further submitted that since A4 was the Secretary to the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, he was given eleven subjects including the Housing and Urban Development Department, the application of his son/A5 was cleared and plot No.538 was allotted to him under GDQ without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a public servant; A4-K.Rajamanickam, I.A.S., (Retired) was the Secretary to then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, a public servant; A5-R.Durgashankar, son of A4, is a private individual; A6-I.Periyasamy was the Former Minister for Housing and Urban Development Department between 2007 and 2011 and A7-T.Udhayakumar, the Proprietor of Land Mark Construction, Chennai. 13.The case against M.S.Jaffar Sait, I.P.S., husband of A2, was quashed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.13711 of 2019, dated 23.05.2019, since the sanction for prosecution against him was rejected by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India, vide order No.26011/33/2011-IPS.II, dated 29.11.2013. Initially, the charge sheet filed against M.S.Jaffar Sait based on the opinion of the then Advocate General of Tamil Nadu as 'Deemed Sanction', since the sanction for prosecuting M.S.Jaffar Sait was getting delayed from the Ministry of Home Affairs. Despite rejection order of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India, dated 29.11.2013, the trial Court failed to act upon the same. Hence, M.S.Jaffar Sait filed Crl.O.P.No.13711 of 2019 and this Court, by order, dated 23.05.2019 quashed the proceedings against him alo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elled on 30.04.2008, again, it was allotted to his daughter Ms.Jenifer, a medical college student, who paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.1,07,77,008/- to TNHB. Due to adverse publicity and comments for the transaction, immediately, on 30.04.2009, Ms.Jenifer requested for cancellation of allotment made to her and the same was cancelled on 08.05.2009. Subsequently, A2, wife of M.S.Jaffar Sait applied for allotment of same vacant plot No.540 under GDQ on 02.06.2009. A4 received the said application on 04.06.2009 and made authoritative endorsement as 'the request may kindly be complied with. Action may please be taken to issue orders' and immediately forwarded the same to the witness LW5-Surjit K.Chaudhary, I.A.S., the then Principal Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department with a direction to consult the then Minister/A6 in this matter. As per direction, LW5 generated the file and the Joint Secretary and Secretary approved the request of A2 and thereafter, A6 concurred with the recommendation of the said officials. Finally, the plot No.540 was allotted to A2 through G.O.Ms.No.143 Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 05.06.2009. 17.Lik ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y and the same was forced to be followed. 18.LW8-K.Phanindra Reddy, I.A.S., Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department confirmed that on the instruction of LW7-K.N.Krishnasamy Rao, Former Joint Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai, the officials below him had put up note file. He further stated that there is no specific order or circular prescribed to produce proof by the applicants, who claims special workers and responsible persons in the society and have done excellent job in the field of arts/science/literature/economic/public administration/sports. LW9-Surjit K.Chaudhary, I.A.S., Secretary to Housing and Urban Development Department confirmed A6 used to give oral instruction and approval to allot plots under GDQ. The witnesses from the TNHB stated that six plots in Kamarajar Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur were allotted under GDQ and sale deed were executed in favour of applicants. The sale deed from the TNHB is a leasecum-sale agreement. A2 and A5 knowing very well that it is a lease-cum-sale agreement and having well aware of the condition that the lessee purchaser shall not be entitled to assign, sublet, or part with the possession of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he defacto complainant, is a matter of fact, which has to be decided during trial. A4 made authoritative endorsement on the application of A2 seeking plot under GDQ and forwarded to the witness Surjit K.Choudhry, I.A.S., with a direction to consult the then Minister/A6 in this matter. A4 being the Secretary of the Former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and having dominant position, acted against the public duty. Further, the allotment was made to A5, who is none other than his son. These facts are proved by the statements of LW6 and LW7 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 21.The Investigating Officers recorded the statement of witnesses LW1 to LW26 and collected documents LD1 to LD133 and filed the charge sheet before the trial Court. The petitioners/A2, A4 to A6 are charged under 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. The charge of conspiracy has to be necessarily decided during trial and not in the above petitions. In this case, all the accused are party to the criminal conspiracy and they committed criminal breach of trust and criminal misconduct. Further, A4 abetted the other accused to commit the offences. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f framing of the charge, if unrebutted, make out any case at all. 70.The provisions of discharge under Section 239 of the CrPC fell for consideration of this Court in K. Ramakrishna and others v. State of Bihar and another, (2000) 8 SCC 547, and it was held that the questions regarding the sufficiency or reliability of the evidence to proceed further are not required to be considered by the trial court under Section 239 and the High Court under Section 482. It was observed as follows:- 4.The trial court under Section 239 and the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not called upon to embark upon an inquiry as to whether evidence in question is reliable or not or evidence relied upon is sufficient to proceed further or not. However, if upon the admitted facts and the documents relied upon by the complainant or the prosecution and without weighing or sifting of evidence, no case is made out, the criminal proceedings instituted against the accused are required to be dropped or quashed. As observed by this Court in Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi, [1999 (3) SCC 259] the High Court or the Magistrate are also not supposed to adopt a strict hypertechnical a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent with it under Section 173, (ii) examining the accused, if necessary, and (iii) giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, he considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, i.e., either there is no legal evidence or that the facts are such that no offence is made out at all. No detailed evaluation of the materials or meticulous consideration of the possible defences need be undertaken at this stage nor any exercise of weighing materials in golden scales is to be undertaken at this stage - the only consideration at the stage of Section 239/240 is as to whether the allegation/charge is groundless. 73.This would not be the stage for weighing the pros and cons of all the implications of the materials, nor for sifting the materials placed by the prosecution- the exercise at this stage is to be confined to considering the police report and the documents to decide whether the allegations against the accused can be said to be groundless . 74.The word ground according to the Black's Law Dictionary connotes foundation or basis, and in the context of prosecution in a criminal case, it would be held to mean the basis for charging the accused or fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. Hence, A4 A5 cannot be discharged from the case in C.C.No.14 of 2019, on the file of the Additional Special Court for Cases Related to Elected Members of Parliament and Member of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu, Chennai. 25.In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders of the trial Court, dated 20.12.2019 in Crl.M.P.Nos.17829 20625 of 2019 in C.C.No.14 of 2019 and the same are, hereby, affirmed. Accordingly, both Criminal Revision Cases filed by A4 A5 stand dismissed. 26.In the light of the above decision and considering the fact the trial where the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
