Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 196
Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
A. SELVAM
S. Ilayaperumal
Versus
The Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation
Crl.R.C(MD).No.490 of 2007
Decided On : 23-01-2008
For the Petitioner:Raj and Pathy, Advocate. For the Respondent: S. Jayakumar, Spl. Public Prosecutor (for C.B.I.).
The central legal point established in the judgment is that no permission under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is required for charges against a government servant under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
Headnote:
Conspiracy - Criminal Procedure - Indian Penal Code, 1973 - Sections 120-B, 182, 420, 511, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The court discussed the provisions of law under which the petitioner and other accused were charged, highlighting the offences committed and the requirement of permission under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for government servants.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a police officer, sought discharge from criminal proceedings related to a case involving alleged conspiracy and false claims. The court analyzed the evidence and legal aspects, including the requirement of permission under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for government servants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner and other accused had committed offences under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, and that no permission was required under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the charges against a government servant.
Issues: Alleged conspiracy, requirement of permission under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for government servants, misjoinder of charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner and other accused had committed offences as charged, and that no permission was required under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the charges against a government servant. The court also ruled that misjoinder of charges did not warrant discharge from the proceedings.
Final Decision: The criminal revision case was dismissed, and the order passed by the Principal Special Court (for CBI cases), Madurai, was confirmed.
1. Challenge in this criminal revision case is to the order dated 19.07.2007 passed in Crl.M.P.No.245 of 2007 in Calendar Case No.3 of 2007 by the Principal Special Court (for CBI cases), Madurai.
2. The revision petitioner herein as petitioner has filed a petition under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to discharge him from the proceedings of Calendar Case No.3 of 2007, pending on the file of the Principal Special Court (for CBI cases), Madurai and the same has been taken on file in Crl.M.P.No.245 of 2007.
3. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner has served as Inspector of Police in District Crime Branch, Pudukottai and in Mimisal Police Station, a case has been registered under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of Indian Penal Code in Crime No.38 of 1999 on 17.07.1999 against one Tamilselvan. One Gunasekaran has given the complaint in question, wherein it has been stated that the said Tamilselvan has driven Bajaj M-80 Motor Bike in a rash and negligent manner and thereby caused accident and the complainant viz., Gunasekaran has travelled as a pillion rider and due to accident, he has fallen down and sustained injuries. The Inspector by name Nagooran has investigated the case and registered in Crime No.38 of 1999 and after completing investigation, he has filed a final report. The Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi has fined the accused viz., Tamilselvan to the tune of Rs.1,250/-. The National Insurance Company, Thanjavur Division has given a complaint stating that a false case has been registered against the said Insurance Company. The complaint given by the said Insurance Company has been transferred to the District Crime Branch, Pudukottai and the petitioner has registered the same in Crime No.16 of 2004 against the said Gunasekaran and Tamilselvan under Sections 420, 120B read with 511 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has conducted investigation and ultimately filed a final report stating as mistake of fact. The said Insurance Company has filed a protest petition before the concerned Magistrate Court and thereby sought for reinvestigation and subsequently the said Insurance Company has also filed a writ petition before this Court and this Court has directed to conduct further investigation and accordingly further investigation has been done and ultimately filed a final report against the petitioner and the said Gunasekaran,Tamilselvan and Nagooran. Further it is stated in the petition that there is no allegation with regard to the alleged conspiracy and further no sanction has been obtained under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prior to proceed against the petitioner. Under the said circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present petition praying to discharge him from the proceedings of Calendar Case No.3 of 2007.
4. The Court below after considering all the rival contentions raised on either side, has dismissed the petition. Against the dismissal order the present criminal revision case has been filed.
5. The only point that has now winched to the fore is; Whether the impugned order passed in Crl.M.P.No.245 of 2007 in Calendar Case No.3 of 2007 by the Principal Special Court (for CBI Cases), Madurai, is liable to be set aside?
6. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has laconically contended that there is no evidence to prove the alleged conspiracy between the petitioner and the other accused found in Calendar Case No.3 of 2007 and no permission has been obtained under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prior to proceed against the petitioner and further misjoinder of charges is found place, but the Court below without considering the above legal aspects has erroneously dismissed the petition and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside and the petitioner is liable to be discharged from the proceedings of Calendar Case No.3 of 2007.
7. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor (for CBI cases) has be
