IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. BHARATHIDASAN, J.
Dr. N.M. Veeraiyan [A7] - Appellant
Versus
State by The Inspector of Police, CBI/ACB/Chennai - Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No. 37 of 2021 & Crl. M.P. No. 462 of 2021
Decided On : 11-01-2022
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 397 r/w 401, 227, 239 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120(B) - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 7, 12 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) - Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Section 7-A - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 3 and 30 – Discharge – Criminal conspiracy - Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to call for the records in Crl.M.P.in C.C. on the file of Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, and set aside order made in Crl.M.P.by Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, dismissing petition filed by petitioner seeking to discharge him from the charges - Whether materials so collected during investigation make out any prima facie case as against petitioner, merely on presumption, that without instigation of A7, A5 and A6 would not have taken amount from bank locker and given same as illegal gratification to A1, dismissed discharge petition filed by petitioner and charges cannot be framed only on a presumption which is not at all permissible in law - Whether a prima facie case has been made out and materials placed before court discloses grave suspicion against accused person - Whether trial will end in conviction or acquittal - Whether a case for trial has been made out by prosecution - Held, Considering all materials available on record, this court is of considered view that no prima facie case has been made out against petitioner for framing of charges and as such continuing criminal prosecution against him would only amount to abuse of process of law - Court, without considering those materials in light of settled principles of law, dismissed discharge petition filed by petition merely on a presumption - Order of trial court dismissing petition filed by petitioner seeking to discharge him from framing of charges is liable to be set aside and revision petition succeeds - Revision petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Prayer: Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.311 of 2018 in C.C.No.21 of 2017 on the file of the learned XIII Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai and set aside the order dated 12.10.2020 made in Crl.M.P.No.311 of 2018 by the learned XIII Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner seeking to discharge him from the charges.
1. Against the dismissal of the discharge petition filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( in short, “the Code”), the petitioner is before this court with this revision petition.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-
(b) In the year 2014, A1 entered into a conspiracy with two of his Subordinate Officers namely, A3 and A4 to obtain a medical seat for his daughter in A2 University by abusing his official position. Pursuant to the same, he instructed one of his Subordinates to conduct an inspection at A2 institution. Accordingly, A3 and A4 along with one Sri.Nilendu Mishra, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Ambattur, conducted inspection at Saveetha Dental College, Saveetha Medical and Educational Trust, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Services. Thereafter, an enquiry under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 was initiated by the Sub Regional Officer of EPFO at Ambattur on 27.02.2015. Then, A1 approached A7 and requested a medical seat for his daughter, however, he could not get medical seat in A2 University. Thereafter, A1 demanded illegal gratification of Rs.50,00,000/- from A7/the petitioner, A5 and A6 through A3 to close the above proceedings. However, after negotiation, the amount was reduced to Rs.25,00,000/-.
(c) In furtherance of the above said conspiracy, on 11.01.2016, A1 called one Sudalaimuthu, who, later on, turned to be an approver, over phone and gave instructions to collect cash from a college representatives and keep it with him. In pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, on the instructions of the petitioner (A7), on 12.01.20216, A6 took cash of Rs.15,00,000/- from the locker maintained by them with Karur Vysa Bank Limited and on the request of A5, one Dasarathan, a contractor for Saveetha Group of Institution and took A5 and A6 to Ambattur and handed over the cash of Rs.15,00,000/- to one Suriyanarayanan, who also, later on, turned to be an approver, the Manager of Sudalaimuthu. Thereafter, Suryanarayanan handed over the cash to Sudalaimuthu and after handing over the cash, both A5 and A6 informed the same to A4.
(d) In the mean time, based on the source information, the respondent CBI formed a team to nab A1 while accepting the bribe amount from Sudalaimuthu. On 17.01.2016, A1 came in a car along with his Auditor one Raja to the house of Sudalaimuthu where Sudalaimuthu handed over the cash to A1. At that time, the respondent CBI intercepted the car and seized the amount from A1, then a crime was registered. During investigation, A6 - Sarav
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.