The main legal point established in the judgment is that the trial Court is not concerned with proof but mere strong suspicion that the accused has committed the offence and that the pendency of civil disputes between the parties would not alter the status of the allegations constituting the criminal offence.

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner against the dismissal of the discharge petition filed under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner who is arrayed as A-7 has been charge sheeted along with the other accused for offences under Section 120-B r/w 420 of IPC and under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. The case of the prosecution is brief that, on credible source information the Central Bureau of Investigation registered a case in RC MA1 2014 A 0025 under Sections 120(B) r/w 420 of IPC and under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on 19.06.2014 against certain named public servants of Puducherry Government, M/s. The Pondicherry Paper Mills Limited and its Directors and M/s. Navasakthi Township Developers Private Limited and its Directors and certain unknown public servants of Puducherry Government. Though the case was initially registered against six persons the respondent after completion of investigation filed the final report on 21.12.2016 implicating ten persons including the petitioner who has been arrayed as A-7. The allegations against the accused persons viz., (i) Shri.M.Venkatesan (A-1), (ii), Shri G.Ragesh Chandra (A-5)-since died), (iii) Shri.A.Selvam (A-6), (iv) Shri.Tamilselvan (A-7), (v) Shri A.Sri Sankar (A-8) is that they being public servants, conspired with Shri C.Subha Singh (A-2) representing the Pondicherry Papers Limited (A-4), Shri K.I.Manirathinem (A-3) and Smt M.Usha (A-9) representing (A-10) M/s.Navasakthi Township Developers Private Limited at Pondicherry and other places to cheat Government of Puducherry, prepared false Encumbrance Certificate and registered the lands in R.S.No.108/1, 112/1 to 5 116/A located at Pillaiyarkuppam Revenue Village, Bahour Commune, Puducherry in favour of Smt M.Usha (A-9) and Shri K.I.Manirathinem (A-3). Thereafter, the accused suppressing the fact that the lands in R.S.No.108/1, 112/1 to 5, 116/A were acquired under land acquisition Act and given to Pondicherry Papers Limited (A-4) for running a paper mill and that knowing well that the lands could not be transferred to others without getting No Objection Certificate/Permission from Government of Puducherry permitted conveyance of lands to third parties by not objecting to grant of permission for approval of layout and construction from the Pondicherry Planing Authority Committee. After lay out and construction of plots and houses in the said lands, the same were sold to third parties. Thereby the accused persons by making false document (EC), converted the Government Property, entrusted with public servants, in to private use and allowed the private persons to use it. Thus the public servants in connivance with private persons caused wrongful loss of Rs.7,53,88,000/- (approximately) to the Government of Pondicherry and corresponding wrongful gain to the private persons. The final report was filed for offences under Sections 120(B) r/w 420 of IPC and under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. The specific allegation against the petitioner Shri.N.Tamilselvan who had been arrayed as (A-7) is that he (a) did not take any action on file No.14680 submitted by Ms Muthu Meena, the then Deputy Tahsildhar (b) kept the enquiry report against Shri M.Venkatesan (A-1) submitted by Shri K.Durga Prasad idle without taking any action (c) did not submit or ensure to submit the file No.14680, handed over by Shri G.Ragesh Chandra (A-5-since died), to Shri Deepak Kumar, the then District Collector (d) did not raise objection for issue of permission for lay out and construction on the lands in R.S.No.108/1, 112/1 to 5, 116/A to Shri K.I.Manirathinem (A-3) during Pondicherry Planning Authority Committee Meeting.

4. The petitioner filed a petition for discharge under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code contending that there was no prima facie evidence or material for framing charges against him. The pe