Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
S. PALANIVELU, J.
Sumathi Ravichandran
Versus
State rep. by The Inspector of Police
Criminal Original Petition No. 31145 of 2012
Decided on: 05-03-2013
Corruption - Criminal Conspiracy - PC ACT 1983, Sec. 8 and PC Act 1988, Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) - The court discussed the legal provisions of PC Act 1983, Sec. 8 and PC Act 1988, Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) and their interpretations, highlighting the offence of corruption and criminal conspiracy, and how the accused abused their official position for pecuniary gain.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Regional Passport Officer, was charged with criminal conspiracy and corruption for facilitating the issuance of passports under Tatkal provisions in exchange for pecuniary advantage. The petitioner sought access to the sanction file for prosecution, which was denied by the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the documents in the sanction file were privileged and their disclosure would jeopardize public interest. The court upheld the denial of access to the sanction file for the accused.
Issues: The issues involved whether the accused should be permitted to access the sanction file and whether such access would prejudice public interest.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the documents in the sanction file were privileged and their disclosure would be against public interest, thus denying the accused access to the file.
Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petition was dismissed, upholding the denial of access to the sanction file for the accused.
1. The following are the allegations contained in the charge sheet filed by the respondent police in CC.No.37 of 2011 on the file of IX Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai:
1. (a) The petitioner was working as Regional Passport Officer, Chennai for the period from 13.7.2005 till 24.04.2009 on deputation. She was the authority, entrusted with the task of issuance of passports at Regional Passport Office, Chennai under regular and Tatkal provisions. During the period 2008-2009 the petitioner entered into a criminal conspiracy with one Fathima(A2), Director M/s. Ahmed World Tours and Travels Pvt. Ltd., and in pursuance of the same the petitioner official position to obtain pecuniary advantage to the said Fathima against public interest, by corrupt and illegal means, fraudulently and dishonestly and thus facilitated her in submission and issuance of passports to the applicants under Tatkal Provisions. It is further alleged in the charge sheet that on 22.4.2009 when P. Lakshmanan visited the Regional Passport Office to ascertain the process to obtain a passport expeditiously, he was told to approach M/s. Ahmed World Travels who would get it done directly from the Regional Passport Officer. When he approached Fathima (A2) Director of Ahmed World Travels, she demanded Rs.12,500/- as the total amount to be paid for the issuance of passport including passport fees of Rs.2,500/-. A2 also told him that out of the said amount, she has to pay an amount of Rs.9000/- to the petitioner.
1. (b) On 22.4.2009 P. Lakshmanan, after submitting his passport application through A2 under Tatkal provision, made a written complaint before the respondent police. On the basis of the complaint, the investigating agency registered a case and initiated trap proceedings. In the presence of independent witness, an amount of Rs.12,500/- was received from the complainant by the staff of A2 on her direction, which included the amount of Rs.9000/- to be paid to the petitioner and the same was recovered.
1. (c) When the CBI Team reached the Regional Passport Office, A2 was available in the office. She was intercepted and it was found that the money found on her was not the same as that given to her in the office. In a short period of 4 months i.e., between January 2009 and April 2009, 88 Tatkal applications have been submitted through A2 and in all the applications endorsements have been made by the petitioner, mentioning the name of A2. The applicants acknowledged payment of service charges ranging between Rs.7000/- and Rs.15000/-to A2 and they were also told that payments were to be made to the then Regional Passport Officer, the petitioner. The petitioner by abusing her official position expedited the issue of the said passports with a dishonest intention and caused pecuniary gain to A2. The above acts of the petitioner and said Fathima constitute offence punishable u/s 120-B r/w Sec 8 of PC ACT 1983 and Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act 1988.
1. (d) It is stated in the petition filed before this Court that the charge sheet was taken on file by the learned IX Additional Special Judge in CC NO.37 of 2011 and P.W.1 was examined in chief and cross. In his cross examination P.W.1 has deposed that the sanctioning authority had initially refused to grant the sanction and only after the pressure from the PMO and the Department of Post the sanctioning authority accorded sanction without any additional materials being provided by the investigating agency. Since the sanction for prosecution which had been initially refused by the Sanctioning Authority was again subsequently given, based on the same materials, the petitioner filed a quash petition In Crl.O.P.No.16262 of 2012 before this Court and the same is pending. In the meantime, the petitioner filed a petition before the trial Court under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for production of sanction file.
2. In the counter filed by the prosecution, it is stated as follows:
2. (a) P.W.1, the sanctioning authority h
AI
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
