Prima facie materials sufficient to proceed against the accused. Admissibility and relevancy of evidence to be decided at trial.

1. Aggrieved against the order of the Special Court for cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai, in C.M.P. No. 1198 of 2016 in Special Case No. 21 of 2011 dated 30.12.2016, the Revision Petitioner has preferred this Revision Petition.

2. The brief facts leading to file this revision petition is as follows:

2.(a) A1 to A7 conspired together to dispose of three plots No. 134E, 229 and 397 belonging to Raja Annamalaipuram Co-operative Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Act under the guise of creating funds to maintain the society, knowing fully well that the society had sufficient funds, the formed a pricing committee in the year 2008, fixed Rs. 3,700/- per sq. ft. and sold the same at the rate of 3,700/- per sq. ft. instead of Market value Rs. 4,150/- per sq. ft. without following the procedure and without obtaining the market value of the property from the District Revenue Officer to M/s. Lamech Engineering Private Ltd. represented by A5 and caused loss to the society to the tune of Rs. 48,40,000/- and gained pecuniary advantage for themselves. Based on the Vigilance report submitted pursuant to the confidential enquiry by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption and as per the order of the Government with regard to the allegations of irregularities and corruption, the investigation made out a case against all accused and filed charge sheet u/s 120-B, 409 and S.13(2) r/w 13(1) & (c) and (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2.(b) The accused have entered into a criminal conspiracy under the guise of creating funds to maintain the society by concealing the fact that the society was having sufficient funds. Accused 1 to 4 formed Pricing Committee, conspired together and without making proper enquiry about the market value of the plots have fixed the market value as Rs. 3,700/- per sq. ft. exempted the condition that the market value must be obtained from the District Revenue Officer and consent should be obtained at General Body Meeting. 1st Accused uploaded the tender documents in Tamil Nadu website with the help of National Informatics Centre on 18.9.2009. But they did not conduct the 'e' tender through online which is mandatory as per the Society Act. The tender documents uploaded in the website were removed in order to avoid others from attending the tender.

2.(c) The accused violated Bylaws 28 and 29 of Raja Annamalai Purai Co-operative Housing Society, Section 32 of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act 1983, Rules 46 and 49 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules 1988 and Circular of Co-operative Registrar (Housing) dated 25.2.2008, 10.3.2008 and 4.6.2008. The 3rd accused avoided 'e' tender in violation of clause 20 of Tamil Nadu Tender Transparency Act in tender rules 2000 has conducted tender on 1.10.2009 at the office of the said society and facilitated A5 to A7 to participate in the tender. A5 to A7 have not submitted any tender documents and A6 and A7 have submitted only offer rate in the tender participation letters on 1.10.2009. The tender covers were opened on the same day at about 11.30 hours, A6 and A7 attended the tenders and quoted Rs. 3,725/- and Rs. 3,715/- per sq. ft. respectively and facilitated that plots should be sold to A5 for gaining wrongfully, who had quoted the highest amount of Rs. 3,750/- awarded tender. A5 to A7 quoted a very minimum difference amount of Rs. 10/- to Rs. 25/- per sq. ft. The market value of the said property during the period 2007-2008 was Rs. 4,150/- as per the Government report. But the prevailing market value during the said period was nearly Rs. 12,000/- per sq. ft. If the sale has been effected for that amount, the society would have fetched more than Rs. 9 crores and the Government would have considerable income by way of registration. Even if the rate as per the Government report was considered as Rs. 4,150/- per sq. ft. the society sustained a loss to the tune of Rs. 48,40,000/-.

2.(d) on filing the charge sheet by the prosecu