At the stage of framing charges, the court needs to evaluate whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed, and strong suspicion founded on material justifies the framing of charges.

1. Since the both the criminal revision cases are interconnected and the petitioner in both the petitions is one and the same, this common order is pronounced. 1. In the affidavits filed by the petitioner/Accused-22, in both the petitions, it is stated as follows:-

1.(a) The charges leveled against him by the respondent are for offences u/s.120B r/w Sec.420 IPC and Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) P.C. Act, 1988, that even though the FIRs both from the F1, Chintadripet Police Station and the later by CBI contains 86 accused persons, the charge sheet was filed in 2008 was restricted to 21 persons only and several persons who are said to have played key roles as the very source of leakage were dropped for the reasons well known to the prosecution and as the attendance register for A.1 Duraimunisamy and A.2 Chinnathambi was admittedly tampered with by a blade, by the officials maintaining the attendance register who are shown as Lws and as a result even a hole is caused and found there and as the Forensic Experts certificate contradicts the statement of A.1 and A.2 said to have given statements voluntarily as how they climbed and gained entry into the DGP's chamber to remove the question papers as the Forensic Experts opinion is that even a trained climber cannot climb and further there is no sunshade and when admittedly private xerox shop has been used for taking print out on butter paper when the facilities are available in the DGP office itself, that neither the woman constable who typed out the question paper nor the private xerox shop people were cited as witnesses and that the complainant Nataraj, the then ADGP and Member Secretary of the Recruitment Board (TNUSRB) who gave the complaint is not a witness and the same FIR is repeated by CBI also, that the petitioner name does not find a place in any of the FIR and for other glaring reasons, petition for discharge was filed under Sec.227 of Cr.P.C., that it was dismissed and the revision preferred was also dismissed by this Court and it has also embraced a dismissal in the Supreme Court.

2. After framing the charges, petition was filed u/s.482 Cr.P.C. in which this Court was pleased to allow the petition and also directed for splitting the case so far as the two occurrences are concerned and quashed the charges framed in C.C.No.10/2009 saying that there is misjoinder of charges and misjoinder of accused and that accordingly in C.C.No.33/2011 the petitioner is himself is now shown as A.22, that the sanction order of 2008 is filed now without any notice and any reply.

3. In the counter filed by the respondent, it is stated as follows -

3.(a) The discharge petition filed by the accused is not maintainable on facts and on law, that the averments made by the accused are denied except those specifically admitted, that the case relates to leakage of question papers on 27.03.2005 and the re-exam held on 01.06.2005 for recruitment of Police constables for which written examination was conducted by TNUSRB, Chennai and that case was registered on the orders of this Court in W.P.No.25153/2005, that subsequent to cancellation of both the examns, an enquiry was conducted by DGP, Chennai and based on the enquiry report submitted by Shri P.Thamarai Kannan, IPS, an FIR in Cr. No.2600/2005 dated 08.12.2005 was registered by Chintadripet Police Station, that as subsequently ordered by this court, the case was re-registered by CBI, ACB, Chennai as RC 58(A) 2006 on 26.12.2006 and all the accused persons cited in Crime No.2600/2005 were shown as accused in the FIR registered by CBI also, that after detailed investigation, a charge sheet was filed before this court against 31 accused persons based on the evidence available against them, that A.11 N.Ravichandran entered into a criminal conspiracy with A.9 S.Devanath having the original C.C.No.10/09 (leakage of question paper of examination held on 27.03.2005) and the other (leakage of question paper of examination held on 01.06.2005), that the trial