Back
2023 Supreme(Mad) 2533
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
R.S. Rajan – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption City Special Unit-III, Chennai – Respondent
Crl.R.C.No. 1191 of 2023 & Crl.O.P.No. 15049 of 2023 & Crl.M.P.No. 9391 of 2023
Decided On : 17-08-2023
For the Petitioner:R. John Sathyam, Senior Counsel, R. Sagadevan, V. Vijaya Shankar, Advocate. For the Respondent:S. Udaya Kumar, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side).
The subsequent orders by the Inspector General of Registration, as appellant and revisional authority, can contradict the allegations in a final report and serve as unimpeachable evidence, leading to the quashing of proceedings if they negate the ingredients required for prosecution.
Headnote:
Corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act - 13(2), 13(1)(d), 120(B), 167 & 409 IPC - Circulars and Guidelines - Abuse of Power - Quashing of Proceedings
Fact of the Case:
The accused, public servants, were alleged to have caused revenue loss to the Government by fixing guideline values for certain lands at lower rates, in violation of circulars and guidelines. The prosecution contended that the accused should have followed the guidelines issued by the Inspector General of Registration but knowingly fixed the guideline value lesser than the value already fixed by the High Level Committee for the neighbouring land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that subsequent orders by the Inspector General of Registration, as appellant and revisional authority, determined the guideline values for the properties, contradicting the allegations in the final report. The court concluded that the ingredients required for prosecuting the accused were totally wiped out by the outcome of the adjudication, and allowing the prosecution to continue would be an abuse of process.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged abuse of power by the accused in fixing guideline values, the applicability of circulars and guidelines, and the subsequent orders by the Inspector General of Registration affecting the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The subsequent orders by the Inspector General of Registration, determining the guideline values for the properties, were considered unimpeachable evidence that contradicted the allegations in the final report. The court held that the ingredients required for prosecuting the accused were no longer present, and allowing the prosecution to continue would be unjust and an abuse of process.
Final Decision: Crl.R.C.No.1191 of 2023 and Crl.O.P.No.15049 of 2023 were allowed, and all further proceedings in C.C.No.01/2021 were quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 28.09.2022 made in Crl.M.P.No.437 of 2021 in C.C.No.1 of 2021 on the file of the Special Court for the Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act at Chennai.
Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.C.No.1 of 2021 pending on the file of the Special Court for the Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act at Chennai and quash the same in so far as petitioner''s concerned.)
Common Order
1. Crl.R.C.No:1191 of 2023 and Crl.O.P.No:15049 of 2023 are petitions to discharge and to quash respectively, preferred by R.S.Rajan (A-1) and Sudha Mallya (A-2) who are the accused in C.C.No:01 of 2021, which is pending on the file of the Special Court for the Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai.
2. On the petition by one A.G.Gopal before the Hon’ble High Court, Madras in Crl.O.P.No.18563 of 2016, criminal case was registered and after completion of investigation done by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Final Report has been filed and taken cognizance by the Court.
3. The gist of the Final Report reads as below:-
The accused A-1 being a Public Servant by virtue of her official capacity as Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Chennai Zone, during the period 2014 and being the appellate authority to fix the guideline value for the lands located in Chennai North, Chennai South, Chennai Central, Kancheeuram and Chengalpattu Registration Districts, instead of fixing the guideline value as Rs.1000/- for the layouts of VIP City and Vanthanam Nagar of Uthiramerur Village, has fixed the guideline value as Rs.500/- for VIP City layout and Rs.400/- for Vanthanam Nagar Layout and caused loss of Rs.1,33,05,593/- with respect of VIP City and Rs.92,82,465/- with respect of Vanthanam Nagar, totally caused loss of Rs.2,25,88,058/- to the Government exchequer by failing to follow the procedures laid down by the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai. By which the accused has caused revenue loss to the Government in exercise of her official act by holding office, abusing her official position and by corrupt or illegal means without following the procedures laid down by the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, obtained pecuniary advantage from the buyers without any public interest, thereby she had committed offence punishable under Section13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
4. In the course of transaction, the accused A-2 being a public servant by virtue of his official capacity in conniving with the accused-1 knowing well that he has no power to give any recommendation for the fixation of guideline value, dishonestly forwarded his report on Vanthanam Nagar Layout file in C.No.4960/A2/2014, dated 17.11.2014 along with his recommendation to re-fix the guideline value to Rs.350/- per sq.ft. (who has formerly fixed the guideline value for Vandanam Nagar plots as Rs.1000/-) to A-1 DIG, if Registration, Chennai Zone, who is the next appellate authority, in order to help the third parties by violating the rules and regulations with intention to sustain the wrongful loss to the Government and for obtaining pecuniary advantage for themselves and the third parties by fixing the guideline value of Rs.400/- on appeal, thereby he had committed offence punishable under Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
5. In the course of same transaction, A-1 and A-2 conspired together and committed criminal breach of trust as A-2 without having power to give any recommendation for the fixation of guideline value dishonestly forwarded his report with regard to Vanthanam Layout file in C.No.4960/A2/2014 dated 17.11.2014 along with his recommendation recommending to re-fix the guideline value as Rs.350/- per sq.ft. (who has formerly fixed the guideline value for the Vandanam Nagar plots as
