IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.
M/s. SYR Infrastructure represented by its Proprietor K.S. Yougandhar & Others - Appellant
Versus
State represented by Inspector of Police Central Bureau of Investigation Anti-Corruption Bureau - Respondent
Crl.R.C. Nos. 1084 of 2021, 202, 225 of 2022 & CMP Nos. 728, 2104, 2336, 13993 of 2022
Decided On : 26-05-2022
Criminal Revision Case - Discharge Petitions - Section 239 Cr.P.C - Criminal Conspiracy - Cheating - E-auction of Iron Ore - Reserve Price - Payment Irregularities
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed discharge petitions under Section 239 Cr.P.C challenging the final report filed against them for offences under Sections 120(b) r/w.420 IPC, Section 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The case pertains to the e-auction of iron ore by M/s.Chennai Port Trust, where the petitioners are accused of criminal conspiracy and cheating in fixing the reserve price, irregularities in payment, and manipulation of the e-auction process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found strong suspicion of criminal conspiracy and cheating based on the low reserve price fixed for the iron ore, irregularities in payment, and manipulation of the e-auction process. The court held that there are sufficient grounds to proceed with the trial and dismissed the discharge petitions.
Issues: The main issues were the fixing of the low reserve price, irregularities in payment, and manipulation of the e-auction process, leading to allegations of criminal conspiracy and cheating.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle that at the stage of framing of charges, the probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into and the materials by the prosecution have to be accepted as true. The court found that there are materials available sufficient enough to frame charges against the petitioners for the offences alleged against them.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Cases were dismissed, and the trial Court was directed to dispose of the case as early as possible, preferably within a period of four months.
JUDGMENT
(This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 Cr.P.C. to set aside the order of dismissal of Crl.M.P.No.6895 of 2021 in C.C.No.5 of 2019 on the file of XIV Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, seeking discharge of the offences and thereby, dismiss the complaint in C.C.No.5 of 2019 on the file of XIV Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, invoking supervisory revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 Cr.P.C. to call for the records and to set aside the order dated 07.12.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.4190 of 2020 in C.C.No.5 of 2019 on the file of XIV Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, dismissing the discharge petition.
This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 Cr.P.C. to call for the records and to set aside the order dated 07.12.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.5579 of 2019 in C.C.No.5 of 2019 on the file of XIV Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, City Civil Court, Chennai, dismissing the discharge petition.)
Common Order:
These Criminal Revision Cases have been filed against the order of dismissal of discharge petitions filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C in Crl.M.P.Nos. 6895 of 2021, 4190 of 2020 and 5579 of 2019 respectively in C.C.No.5 of 2019 on the file of XIV Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. Petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.202 of 2022 is the second accused, petitioners in Crl.R.C.No.225 of 2022 are accused 6 and 7 and the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.1084 of 2021 is the fifth accused in C.C.No.5 of 2019.
3. Respondent filed final report against the accused 1 to 8 in this case. The gist of the final report filed in this case is that during the period 2016-17, A1 to A3 - the officials of Chennai Port Trust, A4-M/s.M.C Jain and associates, A5-M/s.SYR Infrastructure and A6-M/s.Eastern Bulk Trading and Shipping Private Limited conspired together to cheat Chennai Port Trust in a matter of sale of iron ore and in pursuance of the conspiracy, contract was awarded to M/s.SYR Infrastructure on the basis of very low reserve price valued by M/s.M.C Jain and associates and then M/s.Eastern Bulk Trading and Shipping Private Limited was permitted to make payment for the contract, which was awarded to M/s.SYR Infrastructure against the contract terms. As per the prevailing market price, the same quality of iron ore was Rs.1,218/- per Metric Ton. Due to fixation of reserve price at Rs.400/- per Metric Ton, a wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.7,10,45,100/- was caused to M/s.Chennai Port Trust. Therefore, A1 to A3 are liable to be prosecuted for the offence under Sections 120(b) r/w.420 IPC, Section 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and A4 to A8 are liable to be prosecuted for the offence under Section 120(b) r/w.420 IPC.
4. Challenging the final report, petitioners filed discharge petitions under Section 239 Cr.P.C as stated above. Learned trial Judge, on considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the materials available on record, dismissed the discharge petitions. Thus, the petitioners are before this Court by way of these Revision Cases.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners made general submissions about the background of these cases. It is seen from their submissions that in and around 2010, there was a ban of iron ore mining and transportation in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. As a result, M/s.Chennai Port Trust stopped handling iron ore and the exporters were forced to vacate the plots allotted to them. Certain exporters failed to clear the iron ore stocked in their respective plots. M/s.Chennai Port Trust cleared the heaps of iron ore left behind by the exporters by conducting auctions. Residuals of iron ore accumulated in the stocking yards are deposited underneath the earth approximately to a depth of around one metre, which led to increase of dust levels in the M/s.Chennai Port Trust and the Hon'ble Supreme Court appointed the Empowered Committ
The main legal point established in the judgment is that at the stage of framing of charges, the probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into, and the materials by the prosecution h....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that conspiracy can be proven by circumstantial evidence, and the material on record must be evaluated to determine the existence of the ingredient....
In tender-related fraud cases, a conspiracy can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, allowing for charge framing even without direct evidence.
The judgment emphasizes the need for expedited trials concerning offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and highlights the principles to determine whether a prima facie case is made ou....
The court established that a prima facie case of conspiracy and financial misconduct exists, precluding discharge of the accused under Section 239 Cr.P.C.
At discharge stage, strong suspicion (not mere suspicion) is required to deny discharge; prosecution materials creating strong suspicion (like board minutes indicating conspiracy) justify proceeding ....
The court ruled that the CBI lacked jurisdiction to proceed against the petitioners due to insufficient evidence linking them to the alleged crimes as transporters, not exporters.
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.