ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the charge sheet in C.C. No.10 of 2009, on the file of the XIII Special Judge, CBI Cases, Chennai.

2. The case has been investigated by the CBI in connection with alleged leakage of question paper for recruitment of Grade II Constable by the Tamil Nadu Uniform Service Recruitment Board, before examination was conducted on 27.03.2005. Initially, this case was filed by the State Police and later, the same was handed over to CBI.

3. According to the prosecution, through the printing press, a copy of the question paper was stealthily removed by one Duraimunuswamy Head Constable who was arrayed as A1 and one day prior to the examination, he handed over the question paper to one Gopalakrishnan (A14) at Madurai, who in turn, took photo copy of the question paper and distributed the same to one Muthukumarasamy (A29) and Jeyamani (A7). Further the case of the prosecution is that Jeyamani (A7) collected the copy of the question paper from A.Gopalakrishnan (A14), at request of one Ravichandran, Head Constable at Pallavaram (A4) and after collecting the copy of the question paper, he left Madurai and gave a copy to one Maruthupandian, the relative of Ravichandran and another copy to Muthukumarasamy. The said Muthukumarasamy had given the same to one Raju, father of perspective candidate from whose possession, a copy was recovered long after the examination.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prays for quashing the final report pending in C.C. No.10 of 2009 on the ground that there is no incriminating material against him to prosecute moreso, in the light of the fact that this Court had quashed the complaint against Mr.Duraimunusamy (A1) and four others in Crl.R.C. Nos.197 of 201 of

2014 vide order dated 15.04.2016 for want of material evidence.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that according to the prosecution the question paper was fradulently obtained by A1, who in turn distributed the same to others and ultimately found in the hands of one Raju from where, photo copy was recovered. The chain of passing through of the said question paper had commenced from Duraimunusamy (A1) as per the prosecution but this Court had quashed the complaint against A1 and therefore, the link in the chain had got severed and therefore, the prosecution cannot sustain their case. As far as this petitioner is concerned, since the alleged question paper was not recovered from his custody nor the witnesses from the prosecution had said nothing incriminating against him, the case in C.C. No.10 of 2009 has to be quashed.

6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor representing CBI submitted that as per the final report, this petitioner fradulently obtained question paper in advance from Gopalakrishnan (A14) and had conspired along with R.Muthukumarasamy (A29) and in furtherance of Criminal conspiracy passed on the question paper to the candidate Murugesan S/o.Raju for a consideration of Rs.9,000/-. The said question paper was recovered from the residence of Raju during the search conducted by the CBI.

7. In response, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution had not recorded the statements of the accused persons who were police personnels and not relied upon the statements given by them in the departmental enquiry and hardly based on the statements, the final report been filed and those statments been held as not admissible in evidence by this Court in a batch of Revision Petitions filed by the other co-accused. De hors of the findings of the Court in the connected matter as far as evidence of the petitioner is concerned, it is the case of the prosecution that the question paper was recieved by the petitioner from Gopalakrishnan (A14). The only incriminating statement in the entire prosecution case is that the statment of Raju, he had referred the name of the petitioner Jeyamani, he has further stated that when said Raju demanded the