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

2016 Supreme(Mad) 2501

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBBIAH, J.
Dr. M. Manuneethi Cholan - Petitioner
Vs.
State rep. by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, SPE: CBI: ACB: Chennai- Respondent
Crl. O.P.No.12082 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.Nos. 6210 & 6211 of 2016
Decided On : 05-08-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. R. Shanmugha Sundaram, Senior Counsel for Mr.L.Baskaran & A. Gopinath
For the Respondent: Mr.K.Srinivasan, Spl PP for CBI Cases.

Prima facie evidence of demand and acceptance, compliance with the Evidence Act, and proper sanction for prosecution. No prior sanction required for the alleged offence under Section 120B IPC.

Headnote:

Criminal Proceedings - Prevention of Corruption Act - Sections 120B, 7, 12, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) - The court found prima facie evidence of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the petitioner, and held that the provisions of the Evidence Act were complied with. The court also ruled that the sanction for prosecuting the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act was in accordance with the law and that no prior sanction was required for the alleged offence under Section 120B IPC. The Criminal Original Petition was dismissed.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a public servant, was alleged to have demanded and accepted illegal gratification from the 2nd accused to prevent the rival group from taking control of a company. The petitioner sought to quash the chargesheet against him, arguing lack of evidence for demand and acceptance, non-compliance with the Evidence Act, and improper sanction for prosecution.

Finding of the Court:

The court found prima facie evidence of demand and acceptance, compliance with the Evidence Act, and proper sanction for prosecution. It ruled that no prior sanction was required for the alleged offence under Section 120B IPC.

Issues: Lack of evidence for demand and acceptance, compliance with the Evidence Act, and proper sanction for prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi: Prima facie evidence of demand and acceptance, compliance with the Evidence Act, and proper sanction for prosecution. No prior sanction required for the alleged offence under Section 120B IPC.

Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petition was dismissed, and the connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.

ORDER :

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner praying to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.1 of 2016 pending on the file of the learned XII Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, as against the petitioner herein. In the said case, the petitioner herein has been arrayed as the 1st accused.

2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows:-

2-1. The petitioner herein/A1 joined Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India in the year 1990. During the period from 01.11.2013 to 26.08.2014 ie., till the date of his suspension, the petitioner/A1 was holding the post of Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu and Andaman & Nicobar Islands, at Chennai. The petitioner/A1 is a Public Servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2-2. The 2nd accused viz., Dr.M.A.M.Ramaswamy was the Director/Chairman of M/s.Chettinad Cement Corporation Limited (M/s.CCCL), Chennai, till 2014. M/s.CCCL, Chennai is a company of the Chettinad Group which has interest in cement, silica, construction, transportation, steel fabrication, coal terminal and power sectors. At about 6.30 hours on 26.08.2014, a source information was received by CBI that the petitioner herein/A1 and the 2nd accused Dr.M.A.M.Ramaswamy and unknown others had conspired together, not to allow rival group of Dr.M.A.M.Ramaswamy to take control of the Chettinad Group of Companies by removing Dr.M.A.M.Ramaswamy from the chairmanship during the Annual General Body meeting which was scheduled to be held on 27.08.2014 at Chennai. In that process, the petitioner herein/A1, in his official capacity as Registrar of Companies, demanded an amount of Rs.10 lakhs as illegal gratification from the 2nd accused, for not approving the rival group's decision of removing the Dr.M.A.M.Ramaswamy from the Chairmanship of M/s.CCCL, which possibly could be taken during the Annual General Body Meeting (AGM) scheduled to be held on 27.08.2014. It was agreed that for doing so, the 2nd accused Dr.M.A.M.Ramaswamy would give Rs.10 lakhs to the petitioner herein/A1 in the morning on 26.08.2014 at the residence of Dr.Ramaswamy.

2-3. As the above said information disclosed offences under Section 120B r/w and Sections 7, 12 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, the criminal case was registered at 07.45 hours on 26.08.2014 and a CBI team, including independent witnesses, proceeded to the residence of the 2nd accused Dr.M.A.M.Ramaswamy. The team members reached Chettinad Palace (Greenways Road), at 08.45 hours, and strategically positioned themselves nearer to the Chettinad Palace.

2-4. The CBI Team members and independent witnesses kept waiting outside the residence of the 2nd accused and at about 09.25 hours, they noticed a Honda City Car bearing Reg.No.TN 30 A Q 5747, with a red beacon light on its front top, entering the premises. It had red metallic board with inscriptions as "Government of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Registrar of Companies, TN Chennai" along with National Emblem fitted above the front registration number-plate. It is also stated that the team members noticed that a person was sitting at the back seat of the car, who was later identified as the petitioner herein/A1. At about 11.20 hours, they saw the same car coming out from the residential premises of the 2nd accused Dr.M.A.M.Ramaswamy. After following the car and on receipt of a confirmation from the source information that the petitioner herein/A1 had received the bribe amount, the car was intercepted and searched by the CBI team. One of the independent witnesses viz., Mr.M.K.Subramanian, Chief Vigilance Inspector, Chief Vigilance Office, Southern Railways, Chennai, noticed a packet wrapped in paper on the lap of the petitioner herein. When the said independent witness was about to check the packet, the petitioner/A1 was reluctant to han























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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