1. There are three accused in this case. As per the charge sheet, the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.609 of 2011 and Crl.O.P.No.19152 of 2010 has been arrayed as A1 and the petitioners in Crl.R.C.Nos.636 of 2011 and 667 of 2011 have been arrayed as A2 and A3 respectively. A1 has been implicated for the offence under Section 11 and A2 and A3 have been implicated for the offence under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

1A. The petitioners preferred discharge petitions under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) and as against the dismissal of their discharge petitions, they have preferred the above revisions before this Court. As far as A1 is concerned, apart from preferring discharge petition before the trial court, she has also preferred a petition before this Court under Section 482 of the Code in Crl.O.P.No.19152 of 2010 seeking for the relief of quashing the proceedings mainly on the ground of delay in registering the First Information Report and filing the charge sheet on the basis of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Abdul Rehman Antulay and others V. R.S.Nayak reported in 1992 (1) SCC 225 to the effect that an objection based on denial of right to speedy trial and for relief on that account should first be addressed to the High Court.

2.0. The factual matrix of the case right from registering the First Information Report culminating into filing of the final report in this case is to be stated hereunder :

2.1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch C.I.D., registered the FIR in Crime No.15 of 1996 for the offence under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Act. The said FIR was registered on 24.06.1996 in respect of the transactions alleged to have taken place between 1990 and 1993 on the basis of the D.O. Letter written by the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), Chennai. The said letter was incorporated in the above said FIR which reveals that A1 has disclosed in her income tax returns regarding the gifts including DDs and cash given to her on the occasion of her birthday totalling to an amount of Rs.2,09,50,012/- and alleging that the genuineness of the gifts have not been proved and hence, the department has added the said amounts as income in her hands. On receipt of the said letter from the income tax department, without making any further specific allegation, the above said FIR was registered for the offences under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Act.

2.2. Thereafter, pursuant to the notification of Government of Tamil Nadu dated 03.08.1996, Government of India had issued notification dated 07.08.1996 entrusting the investigation of the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation in respect of the FIR registered in Crime No.15 of 1996 by the C.B. C.I.D., Chennai, under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Act. Accordingly, the FIR was registered by the C.B.I. as R.C.No.50 (A)/96 on 02.10.1996 for the above said offences under the Act. It is claimed by the CBI that the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, Tamil Nadu, was already investigating a separate case against A1 for the alleged offences under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Act in Crime No.13 of 1996, and as such, they have not investigated for the said offences. On the other hand, they have altered the offences under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Act and conducted investigation on the basis of the acceptance of Demand Drafts, including a DD of US $ 3 lakhs said to have been sent by one Dr.K.T.B.Menon, by A1 during the year 1992 while she was the Chief Minister. As the said Menon died, it is stated in the charge sheet that there was no sufficient material to establish a case under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Act.

2.3. The charge sheet in this case was filed on 31.07.2006. It is stated in the charge sheet that thereafter the investigation was conducted regarding the alleged receipt of other 8