Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2012 Supreme(Mad) 1019

2012 WLR 239
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. BASHA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
P. Sundararajan
Versus
The Registrar [Vigilance] Madras High Court & Another
WP.No.19894 of 2011 M.P.Nos.1 & 5 of 2011 & MP.SR.No.15082/2012 in WP.No.19894/2011
Decided On : 27-02-2012

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Manikandan Vathan Chettiar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R. Muthukumaraswamy, Senior Counsel for R. Suresh Kumar, AR.L.Sundaresan Senior Counsel for K. Arivunithi, Advocates.

Ratio
When an allegation of misconduct or corruption is received against a subordinate judicial officer by the High Court, it would be well within its jurisdiction to decide the nature of the action to be taken on such complaint.

Headnote:(A)Constitution of India-Art.235-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974)-Sec.154, 157-Court-Judge-Corruption-FIR-Registration-High Court-Enquiry-Jurisdiction-Petitioners had sought for registration of FIR and investigation into their complaint to the High Court registry which alleged that one of the accused in a murder case had a conversation with the trial judge and negotiated about bribe for favourable verdict-Respondents contended that on receiving such complaint, enquiry officer was appointed by the High Court to look into the complaint and the petitioners did not cooperate and the High Court had also taken steps to transfer the concerned judge from that Court and sought for the dismissal of the writ petition-Held, when an allegation of corruption was received by the High Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, the High Court would be justified in conducting enquiry and take suitable action-As the complainant had not produced the material before the enquiry officer to support his allegation of corruption nor appeared as a witness and the witnesses had already been examined in the trial on which no one complained and the High Court had already taken steps to transfer the judge from that Court, no further action was necessary-Cyber crime cell police was directed to enquire into the authenticity and identity of the voice recorded in the CD and the petitioner was directed to hand over the CD to the police and cooperate with the enquiry-Direction was issued accordingly.
(B)Constitution of India-Art.235-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974)-Sec.154, 157-Court-Judge-Corruption-FIR-Registration-High Court-Enquiry-Jurisdiction-When an allegation of misconduct or corruption is received against a subordinate judicial officer by the High Court, it would be well within its jurisdiction to decide the nature of the action to be taken on such complaint.
In view of the complaint preferred against a Judicial Officer and more particularly, making bald and vague allegations in the complaint, we are of the view that at this stage, the question of directing any police authorities or police officials attached to the Vigilance Cell to register the First Information Report does not arise. The procedure adopted for taking an action in respect of the complaint preferred by the petitioner is also in consonance with Article 235 of the Constitution of India. Para 19

Judgment :-

K.N. BASHA, J. This petition is posted before this Court as "specially ordered matter" in view of the order passed by the learned Single Judge to the effect that the matter relating to a Judicial Officer is to be heard only by a Division Bench as per the procedure followed by this Court and hence, the writ petition is before this Bench as per the orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice.

2. By consent of both sides, the writ petition itself was taken up for disposal on 6.2.2012. Mr.Manikandan Vathan Chettiar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made his arguments for the whole day, i.e., from 10.45 a.m. to 6.15 p.m. Thereafter, Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent made their respective submissions. After hearing both sides at length, we have reserved the case for orders on 06.02.2012 itself.

3. The petitioner is a practicing Advocate and he has filed this writ petition on the basis of the complaint preferred by him dated 18.08.2011 relating to the alleged conversation purported to be between the present trial judge and the first accused in S.C.No.94 of 2005 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge (Chief Judge), Puducherry for the offence u/s.302 IPC and other offences. Now, the case is at the stage of advancing arguments.

4.a. The petitioner has stated in his affidavit about the facts of the murder case and as per the said statement, the occurrence in the said murder case is said to have taken place on 03.09.2004 at Varadharaja Perumal Temple at Kanchipuram. In the said case, Kanchi Sankaracharya Jeyendrar Saraswathi was implicated as the first accused out of 24 accused. Originally the said murder case was pending for trial in SC.No.94/2005 before the Sessions Court, Chennai and the same was transferred to the Principal Sessions Court, Puducherry pursuant to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and a Special Public Prosecutor was also appointed by the Government of Puducherry. Thereafter, the trial was commenced and totally there are 189 witnesses out of whom 95 witnesses have been examined and cross-examined before the predecessor of the present trial judge. Before the present trial judge the remaining witnesses have been examined and cross-examined and after questioning the accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C., the case is posted for final arguments on 05.09.2011 before the present incumbent, viz., the trial judge.

4.b. At that juncture, the petitioner preferred a complaint to the 1st respondent on 18.08.2011 making certain allegations and the contents of the complaint are as follows:-

"Sub:-Suspected offences punishable under the PCA 1988 and / or IPC Reg.

[1] Of late telephonic conversations purporting to be between the trial Judge Mr.Ramasamy, of Pondicherry, his devotee/daughter, and two others are being circulated, discussing monetary payments, and promised payments.

[2] You have had the opportunity of hearing the same and transcribing the same, as informed by you during our discussions last week.

[3] The matter has attained a crisis state, since arguments in the Sankaracharya trial is scheduled for 05.09.2011 as per his orders yesterday.

[4] Unless you register a case, and act swiftly, the High Court may unwittingly facilitate completion of the corrupt practice by its inaction or delayed action.

[5] The money-trail may get obliterated if there is delay or defects in investigation.

[6] If there is any doubt regarding the authenticity of the tapes, and if you are technically ill-equipped to research the genuineness, kindly secure me voice samples, so that I can get its genuineness authenticated or otherwise from private labs in the field.

[7] If the tapes are not genuine also, you have a duty to probe them since the fabrication of such tapes, [if it is not genuine] amounts to an assault on the majesty of this great institution, and we as members of the same, cannot be mut

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2012 Supreme(Mad) 1019

Ratio When an allegation of misconduct or corruption is received against a subordinate judicial officer by the High Court, it would be well within its jurisdiction to decide the nature of the action to be taken on such complaint.

Cases Referred (1)

Ratio
When an allegation of misconduct or corruption is received against a subordinate judicial officer by the High Court, it would be well within its jurisdiction to decide the nature of the action to be taken on such complaint.