SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(Mad) 1100

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS.
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.
K.A. Sengottian
Versus
State by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, C.I.D., Coimbatore and another
Crl.R.C.No.426 of 1997 and Crl.R.C.No. 427 of 1997 and Crl.M.P.No.289 of 1997. and Crl.M.P.No.2896 of 1997.
Decided On : 1st October, 1997.

Advocates Appeared:
S. Uthirasamy, for Petitioner.
N.R. Elango, Government Advocate (Crl. Side), for Public Prosecutor, for State.

Revision filed by accused persons against order of transfer of cases held not maintainable.

Headnote:Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952-Section 6-Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Sections 3 and 26-Petitioner alongwith others made accused for offence of criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust and criminal misconduct as public servants-Request of prosecution for transfer of cases to the court of Special Judge allowed-Order challenged-Held, Court notification for appointing special Judge issued as such jurisdiction vested with C.J.Ms lost-Revision held not maintainable.

       

ORDER

The issue is common in both the revisions. Hence, this common order.

2. Mr.K.A. Sengottian, the petitioner herein, who is the former Minister for Transport, Government of Tamil Nadu, is one of the accused in Spl.C.C.No.15 of 1996 on the file of the First Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode and in Spl.C.C.No.155 of 1996 on the file of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem. Both these cases were taken on the file by the respective courts for the offences under Secs.120-B, 409, 409 read with 109, I.P.C. and under Secs.7, 8 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(c), 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with 109, I.P.C.

3. The allegation against the petitioner in the abovesaid two complaints is that the petitioner and other accused entered into a criminal conspiracy, committed criminal breach of trust, received illegal gratification from the contractors for constructing the bus bodies, purchasing materials, electronic equipments and printing tickets by placing orders at an exorbitant rate which resulted in heavy loss to the Corporation and committed the offence of criminal misconduct as public servants.

4. On appearance by the petitioner and other accused before the courts below, copies were furnished to them by the courts in May, 1997. Before framing of the charges, the petitioner filed applications before the courts below under Sec.239, Crl.P.C. seeking for his discharge.

5. At this stage, on 30.5.1997 the prosecution filed an application in Crl.M.P.No.309 of 1997 in Spl.C.C.No.1 55 of 1996 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, requesting transfer of the records relating to the abovesaid case to the Special Judge at Chennai, appointed by the High Court in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.628, Home (Courts-II), dated 30.4.1997. On 10.6.1997 the prosecution filed a similar application before the first Additional District Judge, Periyar District at Erode, in Crl.M.P.No.46 of 1997 in Spl.C.C.No.l5 of 1996, requesting transfer of the records to the Special Judge at Chennai, in pursuance of the above referred to G.O.

6. In the said applications both the courts below gave opportunity to the petitioner and other accused to file their objections. After elaborate consideration of the petitions, the counter and the submissions of the respective counsel, both the courts below allowed the petitions filed by the prosecution ordering the transmitting of the records relating to the above cases to the Special Judges at Chennai, by the orders dated 8.7.1997 and 27.6.1997 respectively. These orders are sought to be challenged in these revisions by the petitioner.

7. Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.Uthirasamy, counsel appearing for the petitioner, though raised several grounds in the memorandum of criminal revision petitions reiterating the grounds urged before the courts below, mainly attacked the impugned orders contending that the courts below have no powers to transfer these cases to the Special Judges who are outside the area.

8. The following is the crux of his submissions:

“The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem have been appointed as Special Judges under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952 by G.O.Ms.No.3223, Home (Courts II), dated 30.12.1982 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 12.1.1983.

Though they were appointed under Sec.6 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, by virtue of Sec.26 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, they are deemed to be appointed as Special Judges under Sec.3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, these Special Judges appointed under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, have not lost the jurisdiction to try the cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, even though a fresh G.O.Ms.No.628, dated 30.4.1997 was issued appointing the Special Judges at Chennai under Sec.3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to try some of the cases including




























































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top