Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH
. – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Superintendent of Police – Respondent
ORDER :
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
| S No | Description | Paras |
| I | Factual backdrop to the suo motu proceeding | 2 |
| II | Initiation of Suo Motu Proceedings | 3 & 4 |
| III | Proceedings before the Supreme Court and assignment of cases to this Bench | 5 to 7 |
| IV | Submissions | 8 to 12 |
| V | Discussions | 13 to 89 |
| VI | Conclusions/Directions | 90 to 92 |
This suo motu criminal revision under Sections 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.) is directed against an order dated 03.12.2012 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Sivagangai (for short, the Special Court) allowing Cr.M.P.No.1372 of 2012 under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C., and permitting the withdrawal of prosecution of Special C.C.No.7 of 2012.
I - FACTUAL BACKDROP TO THE SUO MOTU PROCEEDING
2. The circumstances, under which, the suo motu proceedings were initiated, are as under:
(i) Mr.O.Panneerselvam (A1) was elected to the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly from Periakulam constituency on an AIADMK ticket in May 2001. Between 19.5.2001 and 21.9.2001 and 02.3.2002 to 12.5.2006, he was the Revenue Minister of the State. Between 22.9.2001 to 01.3.2002, he was the Chief Minister of the State. In May 2006, the AIADMK was voted out of power in the State.
Judicial interventions are essential when procedural illegality and political machinations undermine the administration of justice, particularly in corruption cases.
The High Court has the authority to intervene in cases of glaring illegalities in criminal proceedings, especially involving public officials, to uphold justice and prevent abuse of power.
The public prosecutor must independently assess the legitimacy of withdrawal from prosecution under Section 321 Cr.P.C, ensuring it serves public justice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the sanction must be accorded by the Competent Authority as per Sec. 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the material collected for on....
The Magistrate has the power to direct further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC, and such powers can be exercised suo moto as well.
(1) Question with regard to validity of such sanction should be raised at the earliest stage of proceedings.(2) Interlocutory application seeking discharge in midst of trial would not be maintainable....
Revision under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. not maintainable against the revisionary order of the Sessions Judge - No grounds for exercise of inherent power by this Court unde....
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
