IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr. JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED, J
G.saravanan - Appellant
Versus
Director, Directorate Of Vigilance And Anti-corruption - Respondent
W.P.No.798 of 2025
Decided On : 23-01-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. misappropriation of funds (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. petitioner's representation (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. fair investigation necessity (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 4. jurisdiction of magistrate (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
ORDER :
1. This writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 21.07.2024 and 03.10.2024 seeking to initiate investigation for misappropriation of funds allotted to the Periyur Village Panchayat, Salem District.
The facts in brief enclosed in the affidavit of the writ petition are as follows:
2. The Petitioner is an active participant of Gram Sabha meeting in Periyeri Village, Salem District. There were several allegations against the Periyeri Village Panchayat authorities for not properly maintaining the Panchayat accounts and not furnishing the Panchayat accounts for perusal to the Villagers.
3. On perusal of the vendor registration and status report of Periyeri Village, several payment vouchers were raised for the financial year 2023-2024 in the name of "Sai Electricals Gowsika" for a sum of Rs.20,25,108/-. The "Sai Electricals Gowsika" is in the name of one Mrs.Gowsika Navarathinaraj, the wife of Vice President of Periyeri Village Panchayat, Mr. Praveenkumar. The Vice President of Periyeri Village Panchayat, had transferred the funds of the said village to "Sai Electrical" by raising false vouchers in the guise of expenditures of said village.
4. Following this, several complaints were given to Government officials at various levels and finally surcharge proceedings dated 08.01.2024 was issued by the Assistant Director (Audit), Salem, stating that for the financial year 2022-2023, a sum of Rs.45,52,556/- was found to be misappropriated by the Village President, namely, Mr.Sekar. But subsequently no further steps were taken by the authorities against the village President.
5. Mr.Pon.Perumal, a resident of the village had sent his representation dated 22.05.2024 to the 2nd Respondent about the misappropriation and financial frauds involved by the authorities of the village Panchayat. The 2nd Respondent, forwarded the said complaint to the Commissioner of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department also but no action was taken.
6. Thereafter, from the Audit Report of Periyeri village panchayat dated 29.09.2024, it is clear that proper accounts were not maintained for more than Rs.80,00,000/- under different heads. An amount of Rs.27,75,447/- had been transferred to above said Sai Electricals without bills. Further a sum of Rs.6,37,179/- had been transferred to the name of Mr. Praveen Kumar, the Vice President, without proper accounts. Therefore, more than Rs.34 lakhs had been misappropriated in the financial year 2023-24. Further, there were irregularities for the periods 2020-21, 2021-22 and the accounts were also not clear. According to the petitioner, the above misappropriation with the active connivance of the other Government officials has be done and hence, there is a necessity for a fair investigation for the purpose of bringing to light the role played by the authorities on this regard. Therefore, the petitioner sent a representation dated 21.07.2024, to the 2nd Respondent seeking to investigate the misappropriation of funds done by the Vice President of Periyur village and others connected authorities involved in the said malpractice. The 2nd Respondent on 29.07.2024 had forwarded the petitioner's representation to the Superintendent of Police, Salem District but no further action was taken.
7. While so, One Mr.Manimuthu, was the registered vendor of Periyeri village Panchayat and the GSTIN of the said person was cancelled on 01.01.2022. But more than Rs.47,00,000/- of the Panchayat funds were transferred to the said Manimuthu till date. For the said amount appropriate GST was also not paid, which had lead to huge financial loss to the Government. Hence, once again the pe
The court ruled that aggrieved parties must seek investigation remedies through the Magistrate under Section 175(3) of the BNSS, 2023, rather than filing writ petitions under Article 226.
A Magistrate cannot order further investigation after charges are framed; this power exists only at the pre-cognizance stage to ensure a fair investigation.
The court emphasized the necessity of fair investigation in criminal proceedings and clarified the powers of the Magistrate to order further investigation under specific circumstances.
The duty of the Investigating Officer to find the truth, the powers of the Magistrate to ensure proper investigation, and the importance of fair and just investigation under Article 21 of the Constit....
The Magistrate has discretion under Section 175(3) of the BNSS to decide whether to register an FIR based on the application, assessing whether a cognizable offense is made out.
The Magistrate has discretion under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to determine the necessity of police investigation based on the nature of allegations and available evidence.
High Courts should not entertain writ petitions for grievances regarding non-registration of FIRs or improper police investigations, as the law provides adequate alternative remedies for an aggrieved....
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.