Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 3140
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. VENUGOPAL, J.
Chinnasamy - Petitioner
Vs.
State represented by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Dharmapuri - Respondent
Crl.O.P.No.1024 of 2016 and Crl.O.P.No.5589 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.No.2881 of 2016
Decided On : 03-10-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. R. Sankarasubbu
For the Intervenor : Mr. S. Karithikeyan
For the Respondent: Mr. P. Govindarajan Additional Public Prosecutor For Mr.R.S.Sethuraman
The High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and with caution, and not to stifle legitimate prosecution.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL - PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION - VALIDITY - ERRORS IN DATES IN SANCTION ORDER - RECTIFICATION - FRESH SANCTION ORDER - COMPETENCY OF DISTRICT COLLECTOR TO ACCORD SANCTION - MALICE IN LAW - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - SCOPE OF INHERENT POWERS OF HIGH COURT UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. - PRINCIPLES.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a Tahsildar, filed two Criminal Original Petitions challenging the validity of the sanction order issued by the District Collector for his prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He alleged that the sanction order was invalid due to errors in the dates of demand of illegal gratification, that the District Collector was not competent to accord sanction, and that the prosecution was malicious.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that: * The errors in the dates in the sanction order were clerical errors that were rectified by a fresh sanction order. * The District Collector was competent to accord sanction as the appropriate Government under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. * The plea of malice in law was disputed by the prosecution and required a trial to determine its validity. * The High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and with caution, and not to stifle legitimate prosecution.
Issues: 1. Validity of the sanction order for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Competency of the District Collector to accord sanction. 3. Malice in law as a ground for quashing proceedings. 4. Scope of the High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A sanction order for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act is not invalidated by clerical errors in the dates of demand of illegal gratification, provided that such errors are rectified by a fresh sanction order. 2. The District Collector is the appropriate Government under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and is competent to accord sanction for prosecution of public servants. 3. A plea of malice in law in a prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires a trial to determine its validity and cannot be summarily accepted by the High Court. 4. The High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and with caution, and not to stifle legitimate prosecution.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the petitions challenging the validity of the sanction order and the prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Petitioner/Accused has preferred the instant Crl.O.P.No. 1024 of 2016 praying for passing of an order by this Court to call for the records in C.C.No.2 of 2015 on the file of the Special Judge for Prevention of Corrupt Cases Act, Salem and to quash the same.
2. The Petitioner/Accused has focused the present Crl.O.P.No.5589 of 2016 praying for passing of an order by this Court to call for the connected records in the impugned Supplementary Charge Sheet based on the Second Sanction Order dated 27.01.2016 passed by the District Collector, Salem in ROC.No.48144/2010/A2, pending on the file of Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act, Salem in Spl.C.C.No.2 of 2015 and to quash the same.
3. The Averments and Contentions of the Petitioner (in Crl.O.P.No.1024 of 2016):
(i) According to the Petitioner, he was posted as Tahsildar in Valapadi Taluk, Salem on 07.06.2010 and he deducted several irregularities in the quarry operations of local influential persons like SDM & VNC JV Company Private Limited, who illegally quarried in Survey No.158/1, Periya Gaundapuram Village, Valapadi Taluk and submitted a report dated 26.06.2010, 29.06.2010 and 23.12.2010 to the Government and subsequently, levied penalty of Rs.32 Crores. Further, it is the stand of the Petitioner that one Vellaiyan, S/o. Ayyanperumal was imposed with a penalty of Rs.25,340/- as fine for seizure of 1600 tracks load unit of red sand and further 13,000 bricks and 6,41,500 bricks were seized. Moreover, the lorry was forfeited to the Government during the period 20.10.2010 and 25.10.2010 and he submitted a report to the Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Collector, Salem. In this connection, the plea taken on behalf of the Petitioner is that the said Vellaiyan and the Corporate Company conspired with each other to trap the Petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act and he submitted a petition to the Government on 24.09.2010 narrating the conspiracy of the offenders who had suffered in his hands.
(ii) It is represented on behalf of the Petitioner that SDM & VNC JV Company employee one Dharmaraj S/o. Jaganathan was deputed to work as Village Assistant at the instance of local Member of Parliament and he was used as a witness and he allegedly received a sum of Rs.10,000/- on his behalf from Vellaiyan to do an official favour and the demand was made on 22.12.2010 as per F.I.R. However, in the impleading petition filed by one Vellaiyan, it was mentioned as on 22.10.2010 before this Court in M.P.No.1 of 2013 in Crl.O.P.No.22428 of 2011, but as per Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of Vellaiyan, it was stated as 14.10.2010 and that the said act of the complainant is 'Malice in Law' and that the said Dharmaraj again joined the SDM-VNC-JV Company after the case during 2011. In fact, he had worked only for 29 days as Village Assistant.
(iii) Proceeding further, the version of the Petitioner is that the said conspiracy of demand on 22.10.2010 was executed through Dharmaraj on 30.12.2010 and the case was registered on 29.12.2010 and after investigation, a final report was filed based on the Sanction Order of the District Collector K. Maharabhusanam. It comes to be known that the Petitioner had lodged a complaint against the District Collector K. Maharabhusanam for the loss of Rs.32 Crores sustained to the Government and further, he had renewed the licence to the same person without recovering Rs.32 Crores and the enquiry is pending in this regard.
(iv) Therefore, it is the stand of the Petitioner that the Sanction Order is 'Malice in Law'. Added further, it is the plea of the Petitioner that there are infirmities in the Sanction Order that the 'Demand' was on 14.10.2010 as per Sanction Order, but in the First Information Report, the Remand Report, Arrest Card, V & AC Report dated 22.12.2010, the demand was stated to be 22.12.2010' and that the said material discrepancies vitiate the Sanction Order of Charge Sheet.
(v) It is the case of the Petitioner that the District
