Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY. J
S.Balasundram – Appellant
Versus
State rep by – Respondent
ORDER :
(D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.)
This Criminal Original Petition is filed with a prayer to quash the Final Report filed in C.C.No.8045 of 2017 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.
2. On source information, a case was registered in RC MA1 2016 A 0038 CBI by the respondent. The information was that the first accused, an Enforcement Officer with Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, and the second accused, who runs a chain of restaurants, conspired together. The first accused accepted a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs as a bribe and allowed the second accused to submit false Provident Fund accounts to cheat the organisation and gain undue pecuniary advantage by not paying the actual Provident Fund dues.
3. After investigation, the information was found to be incorrect, and the investigation did not reveal any evidence to substantiate the allegations against both the public servant and the second accused. Therefore, further action was dropped against the accused, against whom the case was registered. However, during the course of investigation, it was found that the petitioner/Balasundram was only filing returns and other compliances for the seco
Engaging in consultancy does not constitute 'trade' under Section 168 IPC if not prohibited by law, therefore, prosecution is unwarranted without evidence of illegality.
Exoneration in departmental proceedings does not prevent criminal prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act if the charges involve higher proof standards; 'public servant' includes cooperati....
The court found that no sanction was required under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for the offences charged against the petitioner.
Golden rule of interpretation for any penal legislation is to interpret same strictly, unless any constitutional considerations are involved, and in cases of ambiguity, benefit of same should enure i....
The court affirmed that individuals executing public duties for public entities can be classified as public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, broadening the scope of accountability and....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of prior approval for investigation under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended, and its implications f....
A private individual cannot be prosecuted under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act without the involvement of a public servant as a co-accused.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
