Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 2099
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. VELMURUGAN, J.
State represented by The Additional Superintendent of Police, Special Investigation Cell, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, - Petitioner
Versus
Thiru K. Ponmudi - Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.1374 of 2014
Decided On : 06-09-2017
For the Petitioner:Mr. R. Rajarathinam State Public Prosecutor Assisted by Mr. R. Ravichandran Govt. Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. R. Shanmugasundaram Senior Counsel for Mr. L. Baskaran
At the stage of framing the charge, the court needs to consider whether there is sufficient ground for presuming that the offence has been committed, and not whether there are adequate materials for convicting the accused.
Headnote:
Illegal Acquisition of Government Land - IPC, Prevention of Corruption Act - 120-B, 466, 467, 468, 471 r/w 467, 471 r/w 468, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) - The court discussed the illegal acquisition of government land by the respondent through forged documents and abuse of official position. The court found that there was prima facie evidence to frame charges against the respondent and set aside the trial court's order discharging the respondent.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a former Minister for Transport, was accused of illegally acquiring government land through forged documents and abusing his official position. The trial court discharged the respondent, but the higher court found prima facie evidence to frame charges against the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was sufficient prima facie evidence to proceed with the case and set aside the trial court's order discharging the respondent.
Issues: The main issue was whether there was enough evidence to frame charges against the respondent for the illegal acquisition of government land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that at the stage of framing the charge, it only needs to consider whether there is sufficient ground for presuming that the offence has been committed, and not whether there are adequate materials for convicting the accused. The court also emphasized that the defence taken by the accused and documents relied on by the accused need not be considered at the stage of framing of charge.
Final Decision: The court set aside the trial court's order discharging the respondent and allowed the criminal revision case to proceed.
1. This Revision Petition is filed to set aside the order dated 26.04.2007, in Crl.M.P.No.3259 of 2007 in C.C.No.22 of 2004 pending on the file of the III Additional Sessions/Special Court, Chennai.
2. The following is the brief account of the prosecution case:
2. (a) During the course of investigation in Cr.No.4/AC/2002/CL Vigilance and Anti Corruption of Cuddalore Detachment, the investigating officer got an information that the respondent Tr.K.Ponmudi, during his tenure as Minister for Transport, Government of Tamilnadu, had illegally grabbed the land bearing Plot No.108, measuring 3630 sq. ft. At North Avenue, Srinagar Colony, Saidapet, Chennai-15, by means of fabricated documents in the name of his mother-in-law Tmt.P. Saraswathi in Document Nos.1730/98 and 630/99 of the SRO Adyar, Chennai-20, as if the plot was sold to Tmt.P.Saraswathi by one Tr.K. Kannan @ Kannappan for about Rs.8 lakhs. Subsequently, the respondent constructed a house building worth about Rs.35 lakhs on the plot and has been residing in the said house. Based on the information, after observing the due process of law a case in Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Head Quarter Cr.No.4/AC/2003/HQ, u/s 120-B, 466, 467, 468, 471 r/w 467, 471 r/w 468 IPC and also r/w Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered on 27.8.2003 against the respondent Tr.K. Ponmudi, former Minister for Transport, Government of Tamil Nadu and 9 others and investigation was taken up by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Special Investigation Cell-II, Chennai 600028.
2. (b) After completing the investigation and getting sanction from the then Speaker, Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, Chennai, the Charge Sheet was laid against the respondent/Accused (A1) Tr.K.Ponmudi and 9 others on 2.9.2004, before the Honourable Principal Sessions and Special Judge, Chennai. The brief charge against A-1 to A-10 is that the Respondent/Accused (A1) Tr.K.Ponmudi with the intention of illegally acquiring the Government land in Plot No.108, measuring 3630 sq. ft. (338 Sq. mts.) Door No.13, T.S.No.12/13, Block No.4, Venkatapuram Village, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk i.e., at North Avenue, Sri Nagar Colony, Saidapet, Chennai-15, by abusing his official position and adopting corrupt and illegal means, and by driving away Tr.K.Kannan @ Kannappan who had put up a hut and resided thereon illegally, entered into criminal conspiracy with A2 to A10, being the parties to the conspiracy have agreed among themselves to commit and abet one another to commit such acts, which would facilitate to achieve their object of illegally acquiring the said Government land for the use of A1 Tr.K. Ponmudi, such as forcible eviction of Tr.Kannappan from the said land, creation of forged sale deeds and their registration in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Adyar, Chennai, by personating Tr.K. Kannappan to show as if he had sold the plot to A-3 Smt.P. Saraswathi, cheating the Government and Chennai Corporation by using the forged documents as genuine, commission of criminal misconduct by public servants, etc., and thereby committed the offence u/s 120 B r/w 419, 466, 467, 468, 471 r/w 467, 471 r/w 468 IPC and r/w 13(1)(d) r/w 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Charge Sheet was taken on file in C.C.No.22 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Sessions and Special Court, Chennai and made over to the III Additional Sessions Court, Chennai, for trial.
2. (c) There was another case against the respondent in Spl.C.C No.7 of 2003 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge Court, Villupuram, wherein the charges against the respondent/accused-1 was that he had acquired properties in the names of his wife, sons and monther-in-law Tmt.Saraswathi, which were disproportionate to the known sources of the income, wherein all the others were included as benamies. In this case, all the accused filed discharge petition u/s 239 Cr.P.C., before the Chief Judicial Mag
