SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 67366

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.Nirmal Kumar, J
S.Balasubramani – Appellant
Versus
State represented by:The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Salem – Respondent
Crl.O.P.Nos.2854 | 2989 | 7340 | 7342 | 7352 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan
For the Respondent: Mr.S.Udaya Kumar

Public officials can be prosecuted for conspiracy and misappropriation of funds, even in the absence of prior sanctions, if evidence suggests inflationary practices in procurement procedures.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120-B, 167, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 - Criminal conspiracy involving public officials - Allegations regarding purchase of fogging machines at exorbitant rates causing loss to public funds - Petitioners contended that they followed proper tender procedures and were selectively targeted. (Paras 3-5, 21, 22)

(B) Selective prosecution - Court observed that allegations were factual disputes and it would be premature to quash without thorough trial. (Paras 22)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, former Executive Officers of Town Panchayats, faced charges of conspiring to misappropriate public funds through inflated purchases of fogging machines against government guidelines during 2018-2019. (Paras 2-12)

Findings of Court:
The court found insufficient material to substantiate claims of selective prosecution and upheld the legality of the ongoing proceedings based on the charge sheets. (Paras 21-23)

Issues: The primary issues include whether the petitioners followed due procedure for procurement and whether their prosecution was initiated with malafide intent. (Paras 4, 22)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that factual disputes regarding procedure and intent would have to be determined at trial, reaffirming the principle that claims of malice cannot abate a prosecution solely based on allegations. (Paras 21-22)

Result: Criminal Original Petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioners sought to quash corruption charges. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. petitioners argue procedural adherence in machine procurement. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 10)
3. legal intention and proper procedure in procurement emphasized. (Para 9 , 11 , 12 , 17)
4. responses from state argue against petitioners' claims. (Para 13 , 15 , 18 , 19 , 20)
5. court dismisses petitions based on lack of merit. (Para 21 , 22)
6. court's disposal and observations noted. (Para 23)

COMMON ORDER

These petitions have been filed to quash the charge sheet against the petitioners (A2 to A10 as per F.I.R.)/Accused Nos.1 to 3 in Spl.C.C.Nos.1 to 3 of 2024 pending on the file of Special Court for Trial of Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act , Salem.

(i) The petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.7342 of 2025 and Crl.O.P.No.2989 of 2025 are the Accused Nos.1 to 3 in Spl.C.C.No.1 of 2024.

(ii) The petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.2854 of 2025 and Crl.O.P.No.7340 of 2025 are the Accused Nos.1 to 3 in Spl.C.C.No.2 of 2024.

(iii) The petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.7352 of 2025 are the Accused Nos.1 to 3 in Spl.C.C.No.3 of 2024.

2.All the three cases originate from a common F.I.R. in Crime No.3 of 2021 with regard to purchasing of vehicle mounted fogging machines to Town Panchayats at exorbitant rate and causing huge loss to the Town Panchayat funds during the year 2018 – 2019. Since the allegations are similar and the grounds raised taken by the petitioners are similar, the above Criminal Original Petitions are taken up and disposed of by way of a common order.

3.(i) The gist of the case is that based on a vigilance report in VR No.20894/2020/TP/SL a case in Crime No.3 of 2021 for offences under Sections 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 and Section 120-B , 167, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 474 of I.P.C. registered on 28.01.2021 against A1/N.M.Murugan, formerly Assistant Director of Town Panchayats, Salem Zone, Salem, A2/S.Balasubramani, formerly Executive Officer, Sankagiri Special Grade Town Panchayat, Salem District, A3/D.Srinivasan, formerly Executive Officer, Sentharapatty Selection Grade Town Panchayat, Salem District, A4/K.Sundaramurthi, formerly Executive Officer, Thammampatty Selection Grade Town Panchayat, Salem District, A5/V.Ganesh, formerly Executive Officer, Valapady Selection Grade Town Panchayat, Salem District, incharge of Pethanaickenpalayam Town Panchayat, A6/S.Arumganainar, formerly Executive Officer, Kannankurichi Selection Grade Town Panchayat, Salem District, A7/R.Ashokkumar, formerly Executive Officer, Omalur Selection Grade Town Panchayat, Salem District, A8/M.Meganathan, formerly Executive Officer, Edangannasalai Town Panchayat, Salem District, A9/K.Ganesan, formerly Executive Officer, Panamarathupatty First Grade Town Panchayat, Salem District and A10/M.Kadar Batcha, formerly Executive Officer, Keeripatty First Grade Town Panchayat, Salem District.

(ii). During investigation, it was found that the Executive Officers of the Town Panchayat, namely, A2 to A10 (as per F.I.R.) hatched a criminal conspiracy with the Traders, namely, A11/H.Thageer Hussain, Proprietor of Crescent Traders, Chennai, A12/S.Muthukumar, Proprietor of Muthu Traders, Pudukottai, A13/M.Kannan, Proprietor of TVM Traders, Pudukottai, A14/V.Palanivel, Proprietor of Naga Traders, Chennai, A15/A.Vadivel, Proprietor of AVT Agencies, Trichy, A16/D.Rajendran, Proprietor of MM Enterprises, A17/R.Rajeswari, Proprietor of Sri RR Traders, Thiruvallur, A18/D.Ravintharan, Proprietor of Deva Traders, Thanjavur and A19/T.Nedunchezhian, Proprietor of Nedunchezhian Enterprises, Coimbatore. During the relevant period, they purchased fogging machines to their respective Town Panchayats at an exorbitant rates against the instructions of the Assistant Director of Town Panchayats, Salem Zone knowing well that purchased at a cost more than the Maximum Retail Price, thereby they misappropriated the Government funds by purchasing fogging machines at an exorbitant r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top