Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL
M. Sathiyamoorthy, I.A.S. & Others
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu rep by the Deputy Superintendent Police, CBCID, Headquarters, Chennai & Others
Criminal Appeal Nos.452 to 458 & 498 of 2000
Decided on: 21-08-2009
The judgment deals with the criminal conspiracy and corruption charges against various accused, including government officials and private individuals, in relation to the purchase of color television sets for distribution to villages in Tamil Nadu, India. FACT OF THE CASE: The case involves the alleged misuse of public funds and the demand for bribes by government officials in exchange for placing orders for the supply of color television sets to villages. The prosecution alleged that the accused conspired to inflate the price of the television sets and divert the excess funds for personal gain. FINDING OF THE COURT: The court analyzed the evidence presented by the prosecution and found that the conspiracy theory put forth by the prosecution was not established. The court also found that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was unreliable and contradictory, and that there was no credible evidence to support the charges against the accused. ISSUES: 1. Whether there was a criminal conspiracy among the accused to inflate the price of television sets and divert public funds for personal gain. 2. Whether the prosecution witnesses provided reliable and consistent evidence to support the charges against the accused. 3. Whether the evidence on record established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. RATIO DECIDENDI: 1. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the existence of a criminal conspiracy among the accused. The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to prove that the accused had a common intention to commit the alleged offenses. 2. The court found that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was unreliable and contradictory. The court noted that the witnesses had made inconsistent statements during the investigation and trial, and that their testimony was not corroborated by independent evidence. 3. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found that the evidence on record was insufficient to establish that the accused had committed the alleged offenses. FINAL DECISION: The court acquitted all the accused of the charges against them. The court found that the prosecution had failed to establish the criminal conspiracy theory and that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was unreliable and contradictory. The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. MAIN LEGAL POINT: The court emphasized the importance of reliable and consistent evidence in criminal trials. The court held that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and that mere allegations or suspicions are not sufficient to convict an accused person.
1. Criminal Appeal No.498 of 2000 is filed against the judgment dated 30.5.2000 made in C.C.No.15 of 1997 on the file of the II Special Judge/XII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai and praying to set aside the order of acquittal acquitting A1, A2 and A4 to A9 under charge No.1 for the offence under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code , section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c)(d)(ii)(iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, sections 409, 409 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code , A1 under charge No.2 for the offence under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d)(ii) and (iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and A4 and A5 under charge Nos.7, 10 and 13 for the offence under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d)(ii) and 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and section 409 of the
Indian Penal Code .
COMMON JUDGMENT: The First accused Selvi J. Jayalalitha, the then Chief Minister was acquitted of all the charges framed against her. Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred Criminal Appeal No.498 of 2000 as against her. The second accused T.M. Selvaganapathy, the fourth accused H.M. Pandey, the fifth accused M. Sathiyamoorthy, the sixth accused N. Haribhaskar and the seventh accused K. Janardhanan were convicted for offence under section 13(2) read with section 13(1) (d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (3 counts), (2 counts), (2 counts) (1 count) and (3 counts) respectively and were sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo a further period of three months simple imprisonment for each count. The eighth accused Duraisamy and the ninth accused Muthukumarasamy were convicted for offence under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo a further period of three months simple imprisonment each. All the aforesaid accused viz., A2 and A4 to A9 have filed Criminal Appeal Nos.452 to 458 of 2000.
2. The charges as against the late third accused V.R. Nedunchezhian were quashed. The tenth accused N. Sasikala and the eleventh accused S.R. Baskaran were acquitted of the charges framed against them. But, the State chose not to prefer any criminal appeal as against the order of acquittal recorded as against those accused.
3. As all these appeals have arisen out of the very same judgment in Special C.C.No.15 of 1997, all these cases were taken up for common disposal.
4. It is the case of the prosecution that on 17. 1995, the second accused T.M. Selvaganapathy, who was the Minister for Rural Development Department sent a Cabinet Note on the subject of providing colour television sets to the rural habitations with fifty families and above for a discussion on the basis of the note put up by A5 Sathyamurthy, the Director of Rural Development. The Cabinet Note itself would read that a total fund of 67.72 crores at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per colour television set was required for executing the scheme proposed thereunder. It is alleged that the price of Rs.15,000/- per colour television set was fixed without any statistical analysis or enquiry. The Cabinet Note was placed before the Council of Ministers presided by the first accused in the meeting that was held on 27. 1995. The Cabinet approved the proposal to supply colour television sets to all rural habitations with fifty families. It has also been proposed to replace all black and white television sets available in the panchayat with the colour television sets. The source for mobilisation of such a fund also was discussed and a decision was taken. On 18. 1995, the first accused Selvi. J. Jayalalitha, during her Independence Day Speech, announced that 50,000 colour television sets would be provided to rural areas with the p
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
