2019 Supreme(Mad) 1441

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. SATHYANARAYANAN, P. RAJAMANICKAM, JJ.
M.L. Ravi – Appellant
Versus
Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 21701 of 2018, Writ Miscellaneous Petition No. 25459 of 2018
Decided On : 23-01-2019

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 70 and 161 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Sections 307,386,386(1)(b), 389, 390,39, 394,3949(2),401 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 5(2) - Representation of People Act - Section 8(3) - Bombay Land Revenue Code and Land Tenure Abolition Laws Act 8 of 1982 - Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 - Section 49 - Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 - Section 238 - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 300-A - Public Interest Litigation - Registered political party fighting against corruption - Appeal Against Conviction - Being or expecting to be a public servant and taking a gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act - Power to direct tender of pardon - A memorial is being constructed in honour and memory of former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and former General Secretary of Anaithu India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam namely at a cost of Crores on burial place at Marina Beach Chennai by Government of Tamil Nadu - It is case of petitioner that said area falls within Coastal Regulatory Zone Category-II and without getting prior permission/authorization/clearance especially with regard to Environment Impact Assessment construction in form of memorial cannot come in place - It is contended by petitioner that originally was convicted by Special Court for Trial of Prevention of Corruption Act Cases Bangalore Karnataka for commission of offences under Prevention of Corruption Act and other related I.P.C offences vide judgment on appeal by her and other convicted accused judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court was set aside by Karnataka High Court and judgment of acquittal passed by Karnataka High Court was put to challenge in Criminal Appeal and Criminal Appeal - Hon’ble Supreme Court vide common judgment had reversed order of acquittal passed by Karnataka High Court and also recorded fact that appeal against got abated as she died - It is also brought to knowledge of this Court that Review Petitions in R.P were filed and those review petitions came to be dismissed and Curative Petitions were also came to be dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order - Whether an appeal from a composite order of sentence combining substantive imprisonment with fine is for purposes of Section 431 Cr.P.C corresponding to Section 394 Cr.P.C is not an appeal from sentence of fine - Namely whether a person who has been convicted of a criminal offence and whose conviction has not been suspended pending appeal can be sworn in and can continue to function as Chief Minister of a State? Whether memorial can be erected in honour and memory of former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu namely by spending public money/at cost of public exchequer - Held, In much same vein it was submitted that presumption of innocence continued until final judgment affirming conviction and sentence was passed and therefore no disqualification operated as of now against second respondent - Before Court advert to four judgments relied upon in support of this submission let us clear air - When a lower court convicts an accused and sentences him presumption that accused is innocent comes to an end - Conviction operates and accused has to undergo sentence - Execution of sentence can be stayed by an appellate court and accused released on bail - In many cases accused is released on bail so that appeal is not rendered infructuous at least in part because accused has already undergone imprisonment - If appeal of accused succeeds conviction is wiped out as cleanly as if it had never existed and sentence is set aside - A successful appeal means that stigma of offence is altogether erased - But that is not to say that presumption of innocence continues after conviction by trial court - That conviction and sentence it carries operate against accused in all their rigour until set aside in appeal and a disqualification that attaches to conviction and sentence applies as well - Article 300-A gets attracted to an acquisition or taking possession of private property by necessary implication for public purpose in accordance with law made by Parliament or a State Legislature a rule or a statutory order having force of law - It is inherent in every sovereign State by exercising its power of eminent domain to expropriate private property without owners consent - Prima-facie State would be judge to decide whether a purpose is a public purpose - But it is not sole judge - This will be subject to judicial review and it is duty of Court to determine whether a particular purpose is a public purpose or not - But every public purpose does not fall under Article 300A nor every exercise of eminent domain an acquisition or taking possession under Article 300A - Generally Speaking preservation of public health or prevention of damage to life and property are considered to be public purposes - High Court may in its discretion exercise any of powers conferred on a court of appeal by Sections 423, 426, 427 and 428 make it clear that a High Courts power of revision does not extent to anything more than what Court of appeal can do - When therefore a court of appeal cannot give any relief in respect of an order of conviction and sentence of fine or any other order made against an accused person after accused person is dead how can High Court in revision give any such relief after accused persons death - Writ Petition Dismissed