Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 60574

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J
V. Adhikesavan – Appellant
Versus
State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Special Police Establishment, Central Bureau of Investigation – Respondent
Crl.A.Nos.218 and 219 of 2014 and Crl.A.No.76 of 2015

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. G.M. Ramasubramanian, Mr. G.R. Hari
For the Respondents: Mr. K. Srinivasan (Spl.P.P. for CBI cases)

Public servants must not abuse their official positions for personal benefits, and manipulation of recruitment processes is criminal misconduct, substantiated beyond mere suspicion.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 420, 409 and 120B - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) - Conviction of public servants for cheating and corruption in recruitment process - Accused were involved in manipulating recruitment rules to favor one applicant related to Accused No.1 - Key evidence included the misuse of confidential recruitment materials, leading to wrongful selections. (Paras 3.1, 5.1, 5.4, 5.10)

(B) Evidence - Standard of proof in criminal cases - The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, failing which mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction. (Paras 4.1, 5.1)

Facts of the case:
Both accused were involved in the selection process for two posts in a research center, where Accused No.1 abused his official position by favoring his son Accused No.2, who did not possess necessary qualifications, leading to his wrongful selection. (Para 2)

Findings of Court:
The accused were found guilty of respective charges based on substantial evidence of collusion and fraudulent behavior throughout the recruitment process. All related charges were substantiated. (Paras 5.16, 5.18)

Issues: The court addressed whether the actions of the accused constituted abuse of power and deception in recruitment, focusing on the evidence proving the charges of cheating and corruption. (Paras 5.2, 5.4)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that abuse of official position, even without direct loss to third parties, constitutes criminal misconduct under relevant laws, confirming the necessity of integrity in public recruitment practices and strict adherence to legal protocols. (Paras 5.1, 5.18)

Result: Appeals partly allowed; convictions sustained but sentences modified to reflect the nature of the offenses and health conditions of Accused No.1.

Table of Content
1. conviction based on fraudulent recruitment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments against procedural violations in recruitment. (Para 4)
3. court's analysis of prosecution evidence. (Para 5)
4. final judgment and consequences. (Para 6 , 7)

COMMON JUDGMENT

A. The Appeals:

1. These appeals originate from the judgment dated 28.03.2014 made in C.C.No.6 of 2009 on the file of the IX Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai. By that judgment, two accused, who are involved in the case, namely Accused No.1 - V. Adikesavan and Accused No.2 - Vijay Anand, were found guilty in the following manner.

Accused	Under Section	Sentence
A1	Found guilty and convicted for the offence under Sections 420 & 409 IPC and under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.	Sentenced to undergo RI for one and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, i/d to undergo RI for two months for the offence u/s 420 IPC. Sentenced to undergo RI for one year

Accused	Under Section	Sentence
		and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, i/d to undergo RI for two months for the offence u/s 409 IPC. Sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, i/d to undergo RI for two months for the offence u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act. 1988.
A2	Found guilty and convicted for the offence under Sections 420 IPC.	Sentenced to undergo RI for one and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, i/d to undergo RI for two months for the offence u/s 420 IPC.

1.1 By the same judgment, Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 were found not guilty of the charges under Section 120B read with Section 420 and 409 of IPC , and under Sections 13 (2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 . Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, Accused No.1 has filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.218 of 2014, and Accused No.2 has filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.219 of 2014. While being dissatisfied with the acquittal of the charge under Section 120-B , the prosecution has filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.76 of 2015. Accordingly, all three appeals are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment.

B. The Case of the Prosecution:

2. On 21.05.2008, upon receiving reliable information containing an allegation that Accused No.1, namely Adikesavan, who at that time was working as the Administrative Officer at the Tuberclosis Research Centre (TRC hereinafter), Chennai, and Accused No.2—A. Vijay Anand, being his son—who is only a direct Post Graduate in Public Administration [M.A. in Public Administration] and has Tamil as his mother tongue, submitted an application in response to an advertisement dated 23.04.2005 for a temporary post of 'Supervisor' without possessing the required qualifications. Despite knowing that Accused No.2 did not possess the relevant qualifications, Accused No.1 signed the application, processed it, and included the name of Accused No.2 in the pre-approved list. Subsequently, when the Selection Committee was formed and after the interview, his son/Accused No.2 was selected for the temporary post of Supervisor.

2.1 During October 2005, the TRC issued a circular inviting applications from serving employees for the position of 'Technician' (Field Work), stating that XII Standard and knowledge of Tamil were basic qualifications. The Accused No.2 - Vijay Anand applied for this post, and the Accused No.1 - Adikesavan considered and processed his application, including him in the list of eligible candidates, despite him not possessing the required qualifications. Ultimately, he was appointed. Therefore, Accused No.2 abused his official position by processing the application of an ineligible candidate, who was his son, leading to his appointment.

2.2 On the strength of the said allegation, regular case in R.C.No.2008/0024 for the alleged offences alleged under Sections 120-B , 420, 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered by P.W.19. Thereafter, he completed the investigation and filed charge sheet against the said two persons proposing them as guilty

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 60574

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASD. Bharatha Chakravarthy, JV. Adhikesavan – AppellantVersusState represented by, The Inspector of Police, Special Police Establishment, Central Bureau of Investigation – RespondentCrl.A.Nos.218 and 219 of 2014 and Crl.A.No.76 of 2015

Public servants must not abuse their official positions for personal benefits, and manipulation of recruitment processes is criminal misconduct, substantiated beyond mere suspicion.

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J
V. Adhikesavan – Appellant
Versus
State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Special Police Establishment, Central Bureau of Investigation – Respondent
Crl.A.Nos.218 and 219 of 2014 and Crl.A.No.76 of 2015