Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 1583
High Court of Judicature at Madras
ARUNA JAGADEESAN, J.
A. Subramanian
Versus
The Inspector of Police, CBI Economic Offences Unit II
Crl. RC. No.124 of 2013 & Crl. OP. No. 2377 of 2013 & Crl. MP. Nos. 1 & 1 of 2013
Decided On: 25-06-2014
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Corruption
Act Referred
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT : S.15, S.7, S.19(3)(c), S.13(2), S.13(1)(d)
SPECIAL COURT ACT : S.11(1), S.11
Headnote
Corruption - Discharge Petition - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 15, 13(2), 13(1)(d) - 239 of Cr.PC - 482 of Cr.PC
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Deputy Registrar of a Deemed University, was accused of corruption for quoting high fees during a sting operation. He sought discharge under Section 239 of Cr.PC, which was rejected by the Trial Court. The court also sought to quash the proceedings under Sections 7 and 15 read with 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not qualify as a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and therefore, was entitled to succeed. The impugned orders declining discharge and framing charges were set aside, and the petitioner was discharged.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner qualified as a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and whether the court had jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition against the order framing charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner did not meet the definition of a public servant under the Act, and therefore, the impugned orders were set aside. The court also clarified the scope of Section 239 of Cr.PC and the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.PC.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Criminal Revision Petitions and the Criminal Original Petition, setting aside the impugned orders and discharging the petitioner.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:A. Ramesh, SC for C. Arun Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent: N. Chandrasekaran, SPP.
1. The Revision Petitioner is the accused in CC.No.26/2011 on the file of the learned XIII Additional Judge for CBI Cases, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. The Petitioner filed Crl.MP.No.330/2011 under Section 239 of Cr.PC for his discharge. The said petition was dismissed by the Trial Court. Impugning the same, the present revision is filed.
3. The Petitioner also seeks to quash the proceedings pending on the file of XIII Additional City Civil Judge for CBI cases, Chennai in CC.NO.26/2011 for the offences under Sections Sections 7 and 15 read with 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
4. The crux of the revision petition as well as the quash petition is one and the same, one challenging the order declining to discharge and other challenging the order of framing charge, invoking the inherent powers vested under Section 482 of Cr.PC.
5. The petitioner, who is a Deputy Registrar (Academics) of a Deemed to be University, was arrayed as an accused for the offences under Sections 7 and 15 read with 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as the Act 1988). The fulcrum of the Prosecution rests on a sting operation conducted by a T.V. Channel in June 2009 in a private medical college, namely, Sri Ramachandra Medical College and Research and Institute. During the sting operation, the Deputy Registrar had responded to a query regarding cost of admission by stating that for B.D.S and M.B.B.S course, it would cost Rs.35 lakhs and Rs.40 lakhs respectively. Based on the sting operation, a case came to be registered and investigated, which culminated into final report being filed by the CBI, New Delhi before the Special Judge for CBI Cases. The Institution was not arrayed as an offender due to non availability of material evidence even as per the final report.
6. The Special Judge took cognizance, issued summons to the Petitioner. He preferred an application seeking the relief of discharge and the same was negatived by the Trial Court. Aggrieved over the same, the Petitioner has come before this court.
7. Mr.N.Chandrasekaran, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases raised an objection with reference to the maintainability of the revision on the ground that no revision could be entertained against an order framing charges, which is an interlocutory order. He would submit that though this court has got powers under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.PC to call for the records of any proceedings before any inferior criminal court and go into the correctness, legality or propriety of any order, any such proceedings of such inferior court under Section 397(2), the powers of revision shall not be exercised in relation to an interlocutory order. It is also pointed out by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that under Section 19(3)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the court shall not exercise the powers in revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed by the Special Court in the proceedings under the Act. Therefore, if the court comes to the conclusion that the impugned order framing charges is an interlocutory order, then this court has necessarily to dismiss the revision as not sustainable in law.
8. This is the revision petition filed by the Petitioner against an order dismissing his application by rejecting his discharge petition and framing the charges under the relevant section of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The grievance expressed by the Petitioner in this petition is that without any material,the learned Special Judge framed charge against the Petitioner and rejected to discharge him.
9. In AIR-1980-SC-962 ( V.C.Shukla Vs. State through CBI) the Honourable Supreme Court, while dealing with Section 11 of the Special Courts Act, 1979, would hold that the order framing the charges under the Code of Criminal Procedure affecting the rights of the parties cannot be called to be an interlocutory order and it is revisable in the rev
