ORDER :

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

1. This Court on 17.12.2025 had passed the following order:

“On an earlier occasion i.e. 10.12.2025, this Court passed the following order:

“The petitioner/accused A2 in Spl.C.C.No.9 of 2020 facing trial for offences under Section 120 B, 409, 420, 465, 468, 182, 471 and 477 A IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, has filed this quash application.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was a Research Scholar under A1, who was his guide. A1 is a Professor and Head of the Department of Physics/Principal Investigator, DST, DRDO and UGC projects, Periyar University, Salem District during the period from 01.12.2004 to 23.07.2020. The petitioner was DRDO Research Scholar, Periyar University, Salem, during the period from 19.11.2009 to 31.08.2012.

3.The case against the petitioner is that the petitioner had made entries in the registers of the university without receipt of chemicals and other articles in the University and thereby, abetted A1 to make a claim of Rs.3,29,381/-. As regards the petitioner, the petitioner is said to have written bills to the tune of Rs.1,85,735/-. With regard to the other Scholar, A3, it is Rs.1,43,646/-. Both the Research Scholars have paid the amount and as such, University has been paid back the amount of Rs.3,29,381/-. There was some animosity against A1 and a case in crime No.3 of 2014 registered and thereafter, four charge sheets have been filed. The petitioner has been included in the second charge sheet. He further submitted that though 64 witnesses have been listed in the charge sheet, as regards the petitioner there are only 6 witnesses.

4.LWs24 to LWs26 who are three consolidated paid staff in the University attached to the department of Physics, forced to state that the petitioner had written the registers pertaining to purchase of chemicals with regard to the DRDO Project.

5.LW 27 is the Assistant Engineer TNEB and LW 28 is an Educational Officer in the School Department. Both have been examined to prove that the petitioner had given specimen writings. As regards the other witness, i.e., LW 62 Scientific officer and handwriting expert, the specimen signature of the petitioner has been recorded. The Scientific officer/ the handwriting expert states Q1 to Q106 pertains to Q1, Q107 to Q151 and Q152 to 1Q156 is Q2 and Q157 to Q165 is Q3 and Q161 to Q165 is Q4. Assigning the same, he had conducted his study. As regards the petitioner, Q2 had been compared with S2 and found that both had been written by one and the same person. From the petitioner, specimen signature i.e S1 to S42 have been received, which was compared and studied with the question documents i.e., Q1 to Q106 found similarities.

6.The contention of the learned counsel is that the petitioner is a first generation Post Graduate hailing from a remote village in Thanjavur. He lost his father at a young age and he was brought up by his mother with great difficulty. The petitioner as a Research Scholar under the professional guidance and he goes by the guide's instructions who is A1 in this case.

7.The admitted case of the prosecution is that the petitioner did not have any financial benefit out of the transactions, if at all, it was for A1. Further, A1 in this case, is a guide, who is having dominant position on the petitioner and the petitioner cannot abet A1 in any manner and he has to follow the dictum of his guide and the entries made in the registers are not his duties and on the compulsion of A1, he had made such entries not knowing the seriousness and consequences. If at all, there was any short supply or non receipt of materials for the indent placed by the Head of the Department, the financial department processed and sent for approval to the Vice Chancellor’s Office and thereafter payments made in none of these processes, the petitioner is involved. Only for the reason that there are some similarities in the petitioner’s writings and disp