Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 1453
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. BASKARAN, J.
J. Shekar Reddy - Petitioner
Vs.
State represented by Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) – Respondent
Crl.O.P.Nos.409, 410, 560, 561, 1621 and 1622 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.Nos.289, 290, 413, 414, 1170 and 1171 of 2017
Decided On : 27-06-2018
For the Petitioner: Mr. V. Raghavachari, Mr. B. Kumar, Mr. B. Praveen, Mr. I. Subramanian, Mr. S. Elambharathi, Mr. A.R.L. Sundaresan, Mr. Abdul Saleem
For the Respondent: Mr. K. Srinivasan
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226/227- Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 409, 420, and 120-B - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 , 158 ,154, 155, 156,157, 162,169,170 and 173 - PC Act , 1988 - 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) - Criminal Conspiracy - Offence of cheating - Converted unauthorised cash - Criminal breach of trust - In said FIR, it is alleged that information was received by CBI, ACB, from Authorities of Investigation, Department of Income Tax, regarding seizure of Rs.24 Crores of new currencies from a Tata Ace load vehicle belonging to one on - It is further alleged that aforesaid recovery was effected, following the searches and seizures at premises of Accused 1 to 3 at Chennai - On allegation that A-1 to A-3 with help of unknown public servants of different Banks, converted unauthorised cash held by them in old currency notes, it was concluded that said accused 1 to 3 in conspiracy with unknown Bank Officials and public servants converted unaccounted cash held by them in form of old currency notes to new rupees currency notes and thereby committed offence punishable – Held, Court think it is necessary to repeat, that gravity of evil to community resulting from anti-social activities can never furnish an adequate reason for invading personal liberty of a citizen, except in accordance with procedure established by Constitution and the laws - History of personal liberty is largely history of insistence on observance of procedure - Observance of procedure has been bastion against wanton assaults on personal liberty over years -accused are also same persons - It is also apparent that offence alleged in first FIR and offences covered in subsequent FIRs are connected and arising out of same transaction and as such registering of subsequent FIRs is not proper - Thus, claim of petitioners that lodging of two subsequent FIRs in connection with the same and connected offences as mentioned in first FIR in Crime N - In result, these petitions are allowed - First are quashed as against these petitioners - However, respondent is at liberty to treat allegations made in them as supplementary allegations or to merge same to first FIR - Consequently, connected CMPs. are closed.
The petitioners/Accused have come forward with the above said petitions to quash the FIR registered in Crime Nos. RC MA1 2016 A0051 and Crime No. RC MA1 2016 A0052.
2. The first accused has filed Crl.O.P.No.409 of 2017 seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No. RC MA1 2016 A0051 registered by the Respondent Agency for the offence under Sections 409, 420, and 120-B IPC r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act,1988. The same accused (A-1) filed Crl.O.P.No.1621 of 2017 seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No. RC MA1 2016 A0052 registered by the Respondent Agency for the offence under Sections 409, 420, and 120-B IPC r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act,1988. The 3rd accused has filed Crl.O.P.No.410 of 2017 seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No. RC MA1 2016 A0051 registered by the Respondent Agency for the offence under Sections 409, 420, and 120-B IPC r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act,1988. The same accused (A-3) filed Crl.O.P.No.1622 of 2017 seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No. RC MA1 2016 A0052 registered by the Respondent Agency for the offence under Sections 409, 420, and 120-B IPC r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act,1988. The 4th accused filed Crl.O.P.No.560 of 2017 seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No. RC MA1 2016 A0051 registered by the Respondent Agency for the offence under Sections 409, 420, and 120-B IPC r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act,1988. The 5th accused filed Crl.O.P.No.561 of 2017 seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No. RC MA1 2016 A0051 registered by the Respondent Agency for the offence under Sections 409, 420, and 120-B IPC r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act,1988.
3. According to the petitioners, the Income Tax Authorities conducted search operations on 08.12.2016 and seized Rs.24 Crores of new currencies of M/s. SRS Mining from a Tata Ace load vehicle belonging to one Shri Rishi Kumar in Vellore on 09.12.2016, following the searches and seizure effected at the premises of M/s. SRS Mining and other accused at Chennai.
3.1. Seizure of Rs.8 Crores of new currencies in Rs.2000/- denomination from the premises of M/s. SRS Mining at No.36, Sudhama Building, Flat No.1, 1st Floor, Rear Block, Vijayaraghava Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-17.
3.2. Seizure of 1.63 Crores of new currencies in Rs.2000/- denomination from the premises of M/s. SRS Mining at No. 26, Old No.14, Yogambal Street, T.Nagar, Chennai.
4. According to the petitioner, initially the case was registered in FIR No. RC MA1 2016 A 0040 for the offence under Section 409, 420, and 120-B IPC r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of PC Act,1988 by the respondent agency on 19.12.2016. The FIR was registered against the first accused J.Sekar Reddy, A-2 M.Premkumar and A-3 Srinivasulu. In the said FIR, it is alleged that information was received by CBI, ACB, Chennai from Authorities of Investigation, Department of Income Tax, Chennai regarding seizure of Rs.24 Crores of new currencies from a Tata Ace load vehicle belonging to one Shri Rishi Kumar in Vellore on 09.12.2016. It is further alleged that the aforesaid recovery was effected, following the searches and seizures at the premises of Accused 1 to 3 at Chennai. It is further stated in the said FIR that the first accused Sekar Reddy, Partner of M/s. SRS Mining, Chennai operates majority of Government run sand quarries in Vellore and neighbouring District, while the accused 2 and 3, namely, M.Premkumar (A-2) and K.Srinivasulu (A-3) are his business associates. On the allegation that A-1 to A-3 with the help of unknown public servants of different Banks, converted the unauthorised cash held by them in old currency notes, it was concluded that the said accused 1 to 3 in conspiracy with the unknown Bank Officials and public servants converted the unaccounted cash held by them in the form of old currency notes to new 2000 rupees currency notes and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, and 120-B IPC r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of PC Act,1988.
5. According to the petitioners, A-1 Sekar Reddy and A-3 Srinivasulu were
