The main legal point established is the limitation on granting stay under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the requirement for a speaking order, and the need for a speedy trial in corruption cases.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent praying to set aside the order passed by this Court in M.P.No.02 of 2013 in W.P.No.13454 of 2013 dated 30.04.2013.

Criminal Original Petition filed under Sec.482 Cr.P.C pleased to call for the records in FIR in Crime No.6/AC/CCI/2012 on the file of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai City-I detachment and to quash the same.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the complaint in FIR No.06/2012, dated 15.03.2012 on the file of the respondent and quash the same.)

P.B.Balaji,J.

1. The Writ petition has been filed challenging the FIR in Crime No.6 of 2012 dated 15.03.2012.

2. The facts of the case as set out by the Writ Petitioner in the affidavit in support of the Writ Petition are that the petitioner is the Vice President of a company by name M/s. Barnas International Private Limited, which is involved in the business of supply of Closed Circuit Television Surveillance Units. The said company was selected as the lowest tenderer out of four bidders for supply to be made to Anna University in an open tender process. The Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance and Anti- Corruption) Chennai, registered a case under Sec.120(B), 467,471 and 420 IPC and 13(2) r/w. Sec.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, wherein the company has been named as the accused. It is the specific case of the petitioner that no final report has been filed based on the compliant dated 15.03.2012. However, the petitioner has been harassed by the respondent though he is not shown in the array of accused.

3. The further case of the petitioner is that he has neither signed any tender documents nor participated in the process of supply of materials to Anna University. It is the further case of the petitioner that no public servant as defined under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short ''Act'') has been cited as an accused and the complaint itself is vague by mentioning “unknown public servants of Anna University”. According to the petitioner there is no material to proceed against him. The case has been filed by the respondent only to satisfy the petitioner''s superiors.

4. The said Writ Petition came up before the learned single Judge for admission and the order passed on 30.04.2013 reads as follows: “I have heard Mr.Alagirisamy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Shanmuga Velayudham, learned Public Prosecutor. There shall be an order of interim stay. Notice. Call on 12.06.2013.”

5. Writ Appeal which is also before us viz., W.A.No.1124 of 2013 has been filed by the state viz., the respondent in the Writ Petition challenging the interim order viz., stay granted by the learned single Judge on the grounds that Courts should not stay proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act and interim order passed was not inline with Sec. 19(3) (c) of the Act and also contending that the investigation had just commenced and being in a crucial stage viz., FIR , it was seriously prejudicing the investigation which involves collection of evidence, examination of witnesses etc., and that delay would only defeat the cause of justice.

6. Pursuant to an order passed by this Court on 25.06.2013, the Writ Petition was also directed to be posted along with the Writ Appeal for hearing and accordingly both the Writ Petition as well as the Writ Appeal are posted before us.

7. We have heard the learned Advocate General, Mr.R.Shanmuga Sundaram assisted by Mrs.Geetha Thamaraiselvan, Special Government Pleader for the appellant and Mr.K.J.Rebello for the respondent/Writ Petitioner and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, Additional Public Prosecutor representing the state in the Crl.O.P as well as the Writ Petition.

8. Learned Advocate General would invite the attention of this Court to Sec.19(3)(c) of the Act to