Shenbagamoorthy, the petitioner herein filed a complaint against Mr. MU. Ka. Stalin, the Mayor of Chennai and M.L.A. of Thousand Light Constituency, before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai alleging that he amassed wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income by constructing a big house at Velacherry and having Snow Bowling Centre at Nungambakkam worth about several crores and prayed for sending the said complaint to the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption for investigation under S. 156(3), Cr. P.C.

Entertaining the same, the Principal Sessions Judge directed the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption to make a preliminary enquiry over the said complaint through an Officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police and file the report before the said Court.

Accordingly, preliminary enquiry was conducted and final report was filed by the police stating that no prima facie case is made out against Mr. Stalin, the respondent.

Assailing the said report, the petitioner filed a protest petition requesting further investigation. Rejecting the said protest petition, the Principal Sessions Judge dismissed the complaint by accepting the preliminary enquiry report submitted by the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption.

This order is put under challenge before this Court in this revision.

According to the counsel for the petitioner Mr. T. K. Sampath, the entire procedure followed by the Principal Sessions Judge in ordering enquiry on the basis of the affidavit of the respondent Mr. Stalin and in accepting the enquiry report even though it was pointed out by the petitioner that the report submitted by the police was biased as they were under the control of Mr. M. Karunanidhi, the then Chief Minister, the father of Mr. Stalin.

Mr. M. Venkataraman the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Mr. Stalin in justification of the reasonings given in the order impugned for accepting the enquiry report and rejecting the complaint, would contend that the procedure followed by the Court below was correct and as there were no prima facie materials against the respondent Mr. Stalin to attract the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the order impugned may not be interfered with. He would also point out that the order passed by the Court below directing enquiry was earlier questioned with regard to the procedure adopted by the Sessions Court in the revision before this Court and the same was dismissed by this Court in Crl. R.C. No. 219 of 2001 and as such, the mode of procedure adopted by the Principal Sessions Judge Cannot again be questioned in this revision.

I heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor also. The counsel for the parties and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would cite number of authorities.

Before dealing with the propriety and legality of the order impugned rejecting the complaint filed by the petitioner, it would be better to mention the chronological facts which led to the passing of the impugned order :

"(a) Shenbagamoorthy, the petitioner herein claiming himself as a social worker in the name of Annai Narpani Mandram, filed a complaint before the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai on 8-2-2001 alleging that Mr. M. K. Stalin, the Mayor of Chennai and an M.L.A. amassed wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income and as such, a direction has to be issued under S. 156(3) Cr. P.C. for the investigation to be done by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. The complainant and his counsel were present on that day. The Principal Sessions Judge directed the Office to call the matter on 12-2-2001. On 12-2-2001, the matter was called. The arguments of the counsel for the complainant were heard. After hearing the counsel, the matter was posted for orders on 16-2-2001.

(b) Meanwhile, on 14-2-2001, Mr. Stalin appeared before the said Court along with his Advocate Mr. T. V. Kalyanasundaram and filed an affidavit requesting the Court to order for