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 court acquitted the first accused, 10th accused, and 11th accused and convicted the second accused and fourth accused to ninth accused. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the criminal conspiracy theory and that the evidence of the witnesses was unreliable and unworthy of credence.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved allegations of corruption and criminal conspiracy in the purchase of color television sets by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The prosecution alleged that the first accused, who was the Chief Minister, and other accused conspired to purchase the television sets at an inflated price and received bribes from the suppliers.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the criminal conspiracy theory and that the evidence of the witnesses was unreliable and unworthy of credence. The court held that the first accused, 10th accused, and 11th accused were not guilty of the charges against them and acquitted them. The court convicted the second accused and fourth accused to ninth accused of the charges against them.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution established the criminal conspiracy theory? 2. Whether the evidence of the witnesses was reliable and worthy of credence? 3. Whether the first accused, 10th accused, and 11th accused were guilty of the charges against them? 4. Whether the second accused and fourth accused to ninth accused were guilty of the charges against them?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the criminal conspiracy theory because the evidence of the witnesses was unreliable and unworthy of credence. The court found that the witnesses had made contradictory statements and that their testimony was not corroborated by independent evidence. 2. The court held that the evidence of the witnesses was unreliable and unworthy of credence because the witnesses had made contradictory statements and their testimony was not corroborated by independent evidence. 3. The court held that the first accused, 10th accused, and 11th accused were not guilty of the charges against them because the prosecution failed to establish the criminal conspiracy theory and the evidence of the witnesses was unreliable and unworthy of credence. 4. The court held that the second accused and fourth accused to ninth accused were guilty of the charges against them because the prosecution had established that they had conspired to purchase the television sets at an inflated price and had received bribes from the suppliers.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the first accused, 10th accused, and 11th accused and convicted the second accused and fourth accused to ninth accused. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the criminal conspiracy theory and that the evidence of the witnesses was unreliable and unworthy of credence.
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.
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 population of fifty
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
