SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Mad) 123

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.N. PRAKASH, J.
Sri. Hari – Petitioner
Versus
State Rep. by the Additional Superintendent of Police, CBI (ACB), Chennai – Respondent
Crl. R.C. No. 1207 of 2020, Crl. M.P. Nos. 8412, 8413 of 2020
Decided On : 08-01-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: R. Natarajan.
For the Respondent: K. Srinivasan.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to refer to a specific section of the PHB Act in an office note was not fatal, and actions in breach of codal provisions, by themselves, may not amount to a criminal offence.

Headnote:

Criminal Revision Petition - Discharge from Prosecution - Puducherry Housing Board Act, 1973 - Sections 120-B r/w 420 IPC, Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - [120-B, 420 IPC, 13(2), 13(1)(d) PC Act]

Fact of the Case:

The case involved allegations of the Puducherry Housing Board (PHB) officials purchasing lands at exorbitant rates in violation of rules, causing pecuniary advantage to the sellers. The petitioner, Sri. Hari (A4), filed a petition seeking discharge from the prosecution, which was dismissed by the trial Court. The petitioner then filed a criminal revision petition challenging the dismissal.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the allegations against the petitioner were groundless and that there was no evidence to show that the petitioner had obtained any pecuniary advantage in the deal. The Court also noted that the petitioner's failure to refer to a specific section of the PHB Act in an office note was not fatal, as the PHB members were aware of the relevant section. The Court held that the petitioner deserved to be discharged from the prosecution.

Issues: The issues involved whether the petitioner had obtained any pecuniary advantage in the land purchase deal and whether his failure to refer to a specific section of the PHB Act in an office note was fatal to the case.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the failure to refer to a specific section of the PHB Act in an office note was not fatal, as the PHB members were aware of the relevant section. The Court also emphasized that actions in breach of codal provisions, by themselves, may not amount to a criminal offence.

Final Decision: The criminal original petition was allowed, setting aside the order of dismissal. The Court directed that if the prosecution wanted to examine the petitioner as a witness, they could include his name in the memo of evidence. The Court also emphasized the duty of the petitioner to testify in the trial about the facts known to him.

JUDGMENT :

P.N. PRAKASH, J.

Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 23.07.2020 passed in Crl. M.P. No. 2244 of 2019 in Spl. C.C. No. 2 of 2019 on the file of the Special Court, Puducherry.

1. This criminal revision petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 23.07.2020 passed in Crl. M.P. No. 2244 of 2019 in Spl. C.C. No. 2 of 2019 on the file of the Special Court, Puducherry.

2. The facts in brief are as under:

    2.1 One Rathina Subramanian gave a complaint dated 11.02.2011 to the Central Bureau of Investigation (for brevity “the CBI”) alleging that the Chairman, Secretary and other officers of the Puducherry Housing Board (for short “the PHB”) purchased lands in R.S. Nos. 31/6 and 32/1 at an exorbitant rate in violation of rules and had caused pecuniary advantage to the sellers, who were known to them.

2.2 Since no action was taken by the CBI, the said Rathina Subramaniam filed Crl. O.P. No. 5969 of 2011 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for a direction to the CBI to register an FIR on his complaint.

2.3 This Court, by order dated 27.11.2014 in Crl. O.P. No. 5969 of 2011, found that there are prima-facie materials in the complaint disclosing the commission of cognizable offences and hence, issued a direction to the CBI to register a case and conduct investigation.

2.4 Pursuant thereto, based on the complaint of the said Rathina Subramaniam, the CBI registered a case in Crime No. 9 of 2015 on 27.02.2015 for the offences under Sections 120-B r/w 420 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity “the PC Act”) against 13 persons named in the complaint. These 13 persons are Angalane (A1/Ex-Chairman of the PHB and M.L.A.) Kuppusamy (A2/Ex-Secretary of the PHB), Ashoka Ramasekar (A3/Executive Engineer of the PHB), Sri. Hari (A.4/Ex-Administrative Officer of the PHB), Periyasami (A5/Assistant in the PHB), Mohan Raj Elango (A6/Retd. Assistant), Dinakaran (A7/Legal Superintendent), Subramanian (A8/Office Manager), Tamilarasan (A.9/Programmer), Iswarane (A.10/Junior Engineer), Ravi (A.11/Assistant Engineer), Chandrasekaran (A.12/Assistant Engineer) and Viswalingam (A.13/P.A. to Chairman).

2.5 After completing the investigation, the CBI filed charge sheet in Spl. C.C. No. 2 of 2019 before the Special Court, Puducherry under Sections 120-B r/w 420 IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act against (A1/Ex-Chairman of the PHB and M.L.A.), Kuppusamy (A2/ Ex-Secretary of the PHB), Ashoka Ramasekar (A3/Executive Engineer of the PHB), Sri. Hari (A4/Ex-Administrative Officer of the PHB), Periyasami (A5/Assistant in the PHB), Sarala (A6), Lakshmi (A7), Usha (A8) and Asai Thambi (A9). In this case, Sarala (A6), Lakshmi (A7), Usha (A8) and Asai Thambi (A9) are the owners of the lands, from whom, the subject lands were purchased at exorbitant rates, higher than the guideline value prescribed by the Registration Department.

2.6 It may be pertinent to state here that though 13 officials of the PHB were named as accused in the FIR, the names of accused 6 to 13 named in the FIR were dropped in the final report.

2.7 Sri. Hari (A4) appeared before the trial Court and filed Crl. M.P. No. 2244 of 2019 in Special C.C. No. 2 of 2019 under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for discharging him from the prosecution, which has been dismissed by the trial Court on 23.07.2020. Challenging the said order of dismissal, Sri. Hari (A4) has preferred the present criminal revision under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C.

3. Heard Mr.R.Natarajan, learned counsel for Sri. Hari (A4)/petitioner and Mr. K. Srinivasan, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the CBI/respondent.

4. It is trite that even a strong suspicion is enough to frame a charge and a person can be discharged only when the charge against him is found to be groundless as held by the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu vs. Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709.

5. The PHB was constituted under the Puducherry Housing Boa

                  Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                  1
                  2
                  3
                  4
                  5
                  6
                  7
                  8
                  9
                  10
                  11
                  SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                  supreme today icon
                  logo-black

                  An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                  Please visit our Training & Support
                  Center or Contact Us for assistance

                  qr

                  Scan Me!

                  India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                  For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                  whatsapp-icon Back to top