SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(SC) 14

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.
STATE OF TAMILNADU BY INS.OF POLICE VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION – APPELLANT
VERSUS
N.SURESH RAJAN & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.22-23 OF 2014 (@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NOs. 3810-3811 of 2012)
With
STATE REP. BY DEPUTY SUPDT. OF POLICE VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION – APPELLANT
VERSUS
K. PONMUDI & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.26-38 OF 2014 (@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CRL.)NOs. 134-146 of 2013)
Decided On : 06-01-2014

IMPORTANT POINTS
Condonation of delay is exception.
Defect in investigation cannot be a ground for discharge.

Headnote:(a) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Condonation of delay - Delay of 1954 days - Condonation sought on the ground that earlier government in which the accused was a Minister ordered not to file SLP - Later, present government directed filing of the SLP - Legal remedy has a life span and condonation of delay is exception - However looking to the question of law involved in the impugned orders delay condoned. (Paras 8 to 10)

        (2012) 3 SCC 563; (2008) 17 SCC 448 - Relied upon

        (b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 239 - Discharge - While considering application for discharge court has to consider whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed - It does not have to consider whether a ground for conviction has been made out. (Para 21)

        AIR 2013 SC 52; (2008) 2 SCC 561; (1986) 2 SCC 716 - Relied upon

        (2010) 9 SCC 368; (2002) 2 SCC 135 - Distinguished

        2007-1MLJ-CRL.-100(TN) - Referred

        (c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 239 - Discharge - High Court considering the material on record to find out whether they would warrant conviction instead of whether they were sufficient to proceed against the accused - Further, defect in investigation cannot be a ground for discharge - Impugned order not sustainable. (Para 23)

       Facts of the case:

        N. Suresh Rajan the then Minister in Tamil Nadu, his father and mother was charged with amassing income disproportionate to his known sources of income.

        After filing of charge sheet he filed application for discharge u/s 239,CrPC which was allowed.

        High Court reversed the order and granted discharge.

       Finding of the Court:

        Impugned order is not sustainable.

       Result : Appeals allowed.

       

JUDGMENT

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.22-23 OF 2014 (@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CRL.)Nos.3810-3811 of 2012)

The State of Tamil Nadu aggrieved by the order dated 10th of December, 2010 passed by the Madras High Court in Criminal R.C.No.528 of 2009 and Criminal M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2009, setting aside the order dated 25th of September, 2009 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Special Judge, Nagercoil (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Special Judge’), whereby he refused to discharge the respondents, has preferred these special leave petitions.

Leave granted.

Short facts giving rise to the present appeals are that Respondent No. 1, N. Suresh Rajan, during the period from 13.05.1996 to 14.05.2001, was a Member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly as also a State Minister of Tourism. Respondent No. 2, K. Neelkanda Pillai is his father and Respondent No. 3, R.Rajam, his mother. On the basis of an information that N. Suresh Rajan, during his tenure as the Minister of Tourism, had acquired and was in possession of pecuniary resources and properties in his name and in the names of his father and mother, disproportionate to his known sources of income, Crime No. 7 of 2002 was registered at Kanyakumari Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department on 14th of March, 2002 against the Minister N. Suresh Rajan, his father, mother, elder sister and his bother- in-law. During the course of the investigation, the investigating officer collected and gathered informations with regard to the property and pecuniary resources in possession of N. Suresh Rajan during his tenure as the Minister, in his name and in the name of others. On computation of the income of the Minister from his known sources and also expenditure incurred by him, it was found that the properties owned and possessed by him are disproportionate to his known sources of income to the tune of Rs. 23,77,950.94. The investigating officer not only examined the accused Minister but also his father and mother as also his sister and the brother- in-law. Ultimately, the investigating agency came to the conclusion that during the check period, Respondent No.1, N. Suresh Rajan has acquired and was in possession of pecuniary resources and properties in his name and in the names of his father, K. Neelakanda Pillai (Respondent No. 2) and mother R. Rajam (Respondent No. 3) and his wife D.S. Bharathi for total value of Rs. 17,58,412.47. The investigating officer also came to the conclusion that Minister’s father and mother never had any independent source of income commensurate with the property and pecuniary resources found acquired in their names. Accordingly, the investigating officer submitted the charge-sheet dated 4th of July, 2003 against Respondent No.1, the Minister and his father (Respondent No.2) and mother (Respondent No.3) respectively, alleging commission of an offence under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Respondents filed application dated 5th of December, 2003 under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’), seeking their discharge. The Special Judge, by its order dated 25th of September, 2009 rejected their prayer. While doing so, the Special Judge observed as follows:


“At this stage it will be premature to say that there are no sufficient materials on the side of the state to frame any charge against them and the same would not be according to law in the opinion of this court and at the same time this court has come to know that there are basic materials for the purpose of framing charges against the 3 petitioners, the petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed and orders passed to that effect.”

Aggrieved by the same, respondents filed criminal revision before the High Court. The High Court by the impugned judgment had set aside the order of the Special Judge and discharged the respondents on its finding that in the absen






































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top