The court ruled that a second discharge petition after trial commencement is not maintainable, emphasizing the Speaker's authority to grant sanction for prosecution of MLAs under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

ORDER :

N. Anand Venkatesh, J.

I. FACTS LEADING TO THE SUO MOTO PROCEEDINGS

1. This suo motu revision, under Section 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against an order dated 17.03.2023 passed by the Additional Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases Related to Elected Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu at Chennai (hereinafter the “Special Court”) in Cr.M.P 4204 of 2023 in C.C. 13 of 2019 discharging the 2nd respondent herein (the 3rd accused before the Special Court) from the case.

2. A summary of the background facts has been set out in the earlier order dated 08.09.2023 initiating the present proceeding. All the same, a brief summation is as follows:

i. Mr.I.Periyasamy, the 2nd respondent (A3), was elected as a Member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly on a DMK ticket in May 2006. Between 2007 and May 2011 was a member of the State Cabinet as the Minister for Housing. The case of the prosecution is that between 2008 and 2009, one C. Ganesan (A1), an Inspector of Police in the SBCID (Core Cell), Chennai had entered into a criminal conspiracy with one Kavitha (A2) and the Minister I.Periyasamy (A3) to illegally obtain a HIG (High Income Group) Plot in the Mogappair Eri Scheme of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. It is alleged that Ganesan (A1) had given an undated application to the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Dr.M. Karunanidhi stating that his family was residing in a private house paying exorbitant rent suppressing the fact that he was actually residing in the TNHB Housing Quarters paying a paltry sum of around Rs 1180. In his undated representation made to the Chief Minister, Ganesan requested for allotment of a plot in the public quota.

ii. It is the case of the prosecution that the application made by Ganesan was not accompanied by any supporting documentary evidence. Nor did this petition bear the seal or sign of any officer to acknowledge receipt. The application was however numbered as 5732/HB-5(I)/08 on 06.03.2008 in the Housing Development Department and an office note was initiated on the same day with a suggestion that Plot No.1023 in the HIG category in Mogappair Eri Scheme of the Tamil Nadu should be allotted to A1 under the “impeccable honest Government servant” discretionary quota.

iii. This application was signed by one R.Sellamuthu, Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department on 07.03.2008. This application was then processed at break neck speed and was approved by I. Periasamy (A3) in his capacity as Minister for Housing on 10.03.2008. On the same day the Government issued GO.2D No.170, Housing Urban Development (HG 5(1) allotting the aforesaid plot to A1. Thus, the process of numbering an undated application on 06.03.2008 culminating with the passing of a Government order on 10.03.2008 allotting a HIG plot was accomplished in just 96 hours. Considering the fact that 08.03.2008 and 09.03.2008 were a Saturday and Sunday, the time taken to perform this administrative feat was only 48 hours.In other words, it appears that the application given by A1 was numbered on a Thursday (06.03.2008), processed by the Secretary on a Friday (07.03.2008) and approved by the Minister on Monday (10.03.2008) followed by the release