IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
Kalanithi Maran, Chairman & Managing Director, Sun TV, Chennai & Others - Petitioner
Versus
The State, Represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, New Delhi - Respondents
Crl.OP. Nos. 22121 to 22125 of 2018 & Crl.MP. Nos. 12192 to 12196 of 2018
Decided On : 09-11-2018
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B(1) read with 409, 467, 471, 477A – Section 109 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) - Salaries and Allowances of Ministers Act, 1952 - Section 8 – Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 212(1) - Sections 215 and Section 464 - Section 477A - Section 212(2) - Section 240 - Section 239 - Section 482 - Section 216 - Section 240(1) - Sections 227, 228, 239 and 240 - Section 397 - Section 482 - Section 535 - Salaries and Allowances and Pensions of the Ministers Amendment Act 17 of 2000 - Constitution of India - Articles 20(1) and 21 - Article 227 - Public Servants - During such period, A1, K.B. Brahmadathan was working as Chief General Manager,A2, M.P - Velusamy was working as Chief General Manager, BSNL, A3 was Union Minister for Communication and Information Technology, Government of India, A4 was working as Additional Private Secretary to MOCIT, A5 was working as Electrician in Sun TV, Chennai, A6 was working as Chief Technical Officer, in Sun TV, and A7 was Chairman and Managing Director of Sun TV - It is alleged that A1 to A4 are Public Servants and A5 to A7 are private persons - Sum and substance of final report in a nutshell is that A3, while he was Minister for Communication and Information Technology in Government of India, by abusing his Official Position, in connivance with A1, A2, A4 to A7 had obtained pecuniary advantage and caused, to Government Exchequer, a loss of Rs 1.78 crores by installing a private telephone exchange at his residences at the Boat Club and Gopalapuram at Chennai, Tamil Nadu, which he had used for business transactions involving the Sun TV Network. More than 700 high-end telecom lines, having PRA/BRA/ISDN/leased line, were installed at the residences of A3 at the Boat Club area and Gopalapuram area at Chennai. They were installed under the Service Category and bills were not raised for such utilisation. Apart from such illegal installation of Landlines with ISDN facilities, on instructions of A3, additional SIM cards for use of mobile phones with fancy numbers were blocked for SUN TV and distributed to private individuals connected with SUN TV Network - Facilities given to A3 was excessive, without any authority and not in consonance with Rules and entitlement of Minister or Member of Parliament - By fabricating and forging records, accused had used such facilities as genuine to cover up misdeeds - Based on fabricated documents, accounts were also falsified to show as if there was no outstanding dues from A3 – Held, Court in an earlier proceedings in Criminal Revision Petitions (Crl.RC. Nos.671, 682 to 684 of 2018) had called for entire records from Trial Court and after having analysed documents and statements of witnesses, rendered a finding in order that there are enough and sufficient materials to frame charges, Court is of the considered view that by invoking powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot now review earlier order and quash charges framed out-rightly when petitioners have not shown any exceptional circumstances or that grave miscarriage of justice has occurred, other than raising ground that there are no materials for framing charges - However, this Court is of considered opinion that Trial Court had not framed proper charges in accordance with law, which, in opinion of this Court, is curable, at this stage - Point relating to availability of materials and maintainability of petition to quash charges is answered against accused - Point relating to framing of charges is answered in favour of accused - Accordingly, this Court deems it fit to issue suitable directions to trial Court – Petition Dismissed.
1. This Criminal Original Petitions are filed to call for the records in CC.No.12 of 2017 on the file of the XIV Additional Judge, CBI Cases, Chennai and to quash the charges framed as against the Petitioners/A7, A5, A6, A3 and A4, respectively, in CC.No.12 of 2017, dated 30.08.2018.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein after are referred to as they were arrayed in the impugned Charge Sheet, i.e. A1, A2, A3, A4, A5 and A6 and A7 and the Respondent Police. Though there are seven accused persons/A1 to A7 and the charges were framed against all of them, namely, A1 to A7, only five accused persons/A7, A5, A6, A3 and A4 have challenged the impugned charges, by way of the above Criminal Original Petitions.
3. The facts, in a nutshell, leading to filing of these Criminal Original Petitions and also relevant and necessary for disposal of these Criminal Original Petitions are as follows:-
a. On receipt of reliable information, the Respondent Police, after conducting a preliminary enquiry, finding that Mr. Dhayanithi Maran (Former Union Minister for Communication and Information Technology) and others had hatched a conspiracy to commit breach of trust, fabricated documents, used the forged documents as genuine and falsified accounts detrimental to the Government Exchequer, had registered a First Information Report on 23.07.2013. In the course of the investigation, materials were collected, which according to the Prosecution, were sufficient and relevant to frame charges and try the named accused persons and filed the final report for prosecuting them.
b. The offences were allegedly said to have taken place during the period from 23.05.2004 to 13.05.2007. During such period, A1, K.B. Brahmadathan was working as the Chief General Manager, BSNL Chennai, Chennai District, A2, M.P. Velusamy was working as the Chief General Manager, BSNL Chennai District, A3 was the Union Minister for Communication and Information Technology, Government of India, A4 was working as the Additional Private Secretary to MOCIT, A5 was working as the Electrician in the Sun TV, Chennai, A6 was working as the Chief Technical Officer, in the Sun TV, Chennai and A7 was the Chairman and Managing Director of the Sun TV. It is alleged that A1 to A4 are Public Servants and A5 to A7 are private persons.
c. The sum and substance of the final report in a nutshell is that A3, while he was the Minister for Communication and Information Technology (MOC&IT) in the Government of India during 2004 to 2007, by abusing his Official Position, in connivance with A1, A2, A4 to A7 had obtained pecuniary advantage and caused, to the Government Exchequer, a loss of Rs 1.78 crores by installing a private telephone exchange at his residences at the Boat Club and Gopalapuram at Chennai, Tamil Nadu, which he had used for business transactions involving the Sun TV Network. More than 700 high-end telecom lines, having PRA/BRA/ISDN/leased line, were installed at the residences of A3 at the Boat Club area and Gopalapuram area at Chennai. They were installed under the Service Category and bills were not raised for such utilisation. Apart from such illegal installation of Landlines with ISDN facilities, on the instructions of A3, additional SIM cards for use of mobile phones with fancy numbers were blocked for SUN TV and distributed to private individuals connected with SUN TV Network. The facilities given to A3 was excessive, without any authority and not in consonance with the Rules and entitlement of Minister or Member of Parliament. By fabricating and forging the records, the accused had used such facilities as genuine to cover up the misdeeds. Based on fabricated documents, accounts were also falsified to show as if there was no outstanding dues from A3.
d. To substantiate the above allegations, the Respondent Police had relied upon 124 documents, most of which, are files
All India Bank Officers` Confederation v. Union of India
Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd and ors. V. State of Maharashtra
Chitresh Kumar Chopra V. State (Government of NCT of Delhi
Common Cause, A Registered Society V. Union of India and others
Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra
Ghcl Employees Stock Option Trust V. India Infoline Limited
Hardeep Singh V. State of Punjab and others
Helios and Matheson Information Technology Ltd and others V.Rajeev Sawhney and another
Jasvinder Saini and others V. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd V. Datar Switchgear Limited
Mauvin Godinho Vs. State of Goa
Nalinakhya Bysack V. Shyam Sundar Haldar and ors.
Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya
P. Kartikalakshmi V. Sri Ganesh and another
Parminder Kaur V. State of Uttar Pradesh and another
S.Harnam Singh V.The State (Delhi Admn.
Sajjan Sharma V. State of Bihar
Santosh Kumari Vs. State of JK
Sheila Sebastian V. R.Jawaharaj and Another
State (NCT of Delhi) V. Navjot Sandhu
State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh
State of HP Vs. Krishan Lal Pardhan and other
State of Karnataka V. L.Muniswamy and others
State of M.P. v. Krishna Chandra Saksena
State of M.P. v. Mohanlal Soni
State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan Maharaj
State of Rajasthan Vs. Fatehkaran Mehdu
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. N.Suresh Rajan and others
State through Central Bureau of Investigation V. Dr.Anup Kumar Srivastava
Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia
Sunil Bharti Mittal V. Central Bureau of Investigation
Sunita Jain V. Pawan Kumar Jain and others
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs West Bengal Vs. Mohan Singh
Suresh v. State of Maharashtra
Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal
Unique Butle Tube Industries (P) Ltd V.UP Financial Corporation and ors.
Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel Vs. Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel and others
Willie (William) Slaney v. State of M.P.
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd and others V. Mohd.Sharaful Haque and another
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.