Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 622
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P.N. PRAKASH, J.
P. Venkateswarlu - Petitioner
Versus
The Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Bureau, Chennai - Respondent
Crl.R.C.(MD) Nos. 500, 501, 502, 514, 515, 516 & 517 of 2016
Decided On : 06-02-2018
For the Petitioner:C. Jegannathan, Advocate.
For the Respondent: N. Ashok Kumar Gowtham, Senior Public Prosecutor for C.B.I. Cases.
At the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the court has to proceed with an assumption that the materials brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate them to find out whether the facts emerging disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence.
Headnote:
Criminal Revision Petitions - Discharge Applications - Sections 120-B r/w 420, 467, 468 r/w 471 I.P.C., and Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the power under Sections 227 and 239 Cr.P.C., and the contours of the power to frame charges. It referred to State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709, to emphasize that at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the court has to proceed with an assumption that the materials brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate the said materials and documents with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence.
Fact of the Case:
The Central Bureau of Investigation registered a case against the petitioner for various offences under the IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner filed discharge applications, which were dismissed by the Trial Court. The petitioner challenged these dismissals through criminal revision petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that there were prima facie materials for the prosecution to proceed against the petitioner. It emphasized that at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the court has to proceed with an assumption that the materials brought on record by the prosecution are true.
Issues: The main issue was whether there were prima facie materials for the Court to frame charges against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court cannot conduct a mini trial with regard to the culpability of the petitioner in the alleged offences. It must proceed with an assumption that the materials brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate them to find out whether the facts emerging disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence.
Final Decision: All the criminal revision petitions were dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to surrender before the Trial Court within a specified period.
1. The Central Bureau of Investigation registered a case in RC MA1 2011 A 007, on 08.02.2011, against the petitioner herein for the offences under Sections 120-B r/w 420, 467, 468 r/w 471 I.P.C., and Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and after completion of the investigation has filed totally eleven charge sheets in C.C.Nos.12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of 2012, before the Special Court for C.B.I.Cases, Madurai. At this stage, it may be relevant to state that in all these cases, the petitioner herein has been shown as A1 and the beneficiaries have been shown as the co-accused. The petitioner filed applications, under Sections 239 Cr.P.C., in C.C.Nos.13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 22 of 2012 seeking to discharge him from the above prosecution. The Trial Court, by individual orders dated 31.05.2016 has dismissed all the discharge applications on the ground that there are prima facie materials for the Trial Court to frame charges against the petitioner. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present criminal revision petitions.
2. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has also filed criminal original petitions in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos. 8514, 8515, 8516 & 8517 of 2016, under Sections 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the charge sheets in C.C.Nos.21, 12, 20 & 14 of 2012 respectively on the file of the Special Court for C.B.I.Cases, Madurai. All these criminal original petitions were heard by this Court and dismissed today (i.e.06.02.2018) holding that there are prima facie materials for the prosecution to proceed against the petitioner. The crux of the allegations in all the charge sheets is as follows:
“During the period between June 2009 to October 2010 at Ramanathapuram area Shri P. Venkateswarlu abused his official position, conspired with Shri V. Muniasamy (A-7) and Smt. D. Packialakshmi (A-3) and in pursuance of the conspiracy Smt. D. Packialakshmi submitted loan application on 24.04.10 to Shri P. Venkateswaralu (A-1) under PMEGP scheme enclosing a forged lease agreement purported to be valuable security, forged with the help of Shri P. Venkateswaralu (A-1) & Shri V. Muniasamy (A-7), falsely representing that a brick manufacturing unit at 20A, 6B, Arasardivandal, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram has to be commenced. In copy of the stamp paper bearing Sl.No.36A 610283 for the lease agreement, serial number was forged as 610287. PMEGP scheme is meant for unemployment person which is given in subsidised rate. Shri Muniasamy forged the signature of unknown persons as witnesses in the lease agreement of Smt Packialakshmi and he also assisted the Branch manager for preparation of forged lease agreement of Shri Sethupathy Rajan, Shri M. Jeyakumar, Smt. Dhanalakshmi and Smt. Mariammal using the submitted lease agreement of Smt. Packialakshmi. Shri P. Venkateswaralu accepted the forged documents purported to be valuable security, knowing fully well that the documents are forged one. In investigation it is revealed that the said survey number was not available as per VAO record and there was no brick manufacturing unit in the said address. Shri P. Venkateswaralu without conducing proper inspection and relying on the forged documents sanctioned PMEGP loan of Rs.5,00,000/- violating the laid down procedure to Smt. Packialakshmi on 28.04.2010. Smt. Packialakshmi (A-3) submitted the false photograph of the brick manufacturing unit as per instructions of Shri P. Venkateswaralu (A-1) Branch Manager. Shri P. Venkateswaralu (A-1) had forged signature of Shri Selvakumar Asst. Manager in the financial report pertaining to loan account of Smt. Packialakshmi (A-3). The loan amount was released in two installments first on 28.04.2010 and second on 06.05.2010. To claim further installments, no supporting bills were submitted by Smt. Packialakshmi (A-3). Post sanction inspection was also not conducted. Having received the loan amount under PMEGP Scheme, Smt. Packialakshmi (A-3) in conspiracy with
