Crl.RC.No.583 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 18.07.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

Crl.R.C.No.583 of 2023

and

Crl.MP.Nos.4359 and 4360 of 2023

S.Rajendran

....

Petitioner

Vs

State By:

Deputy Superintendent of Police,

CBI/ACB, Chennai

....

Respondent

(Crime No.RC MA1 2014 A 0037)

Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C.,

to call for records and set aside the order passed by the XII Additional Special

Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai in Crl.MP.No.7881 of 2018 dated 15.02.2023

in CC.No.1 of 2016.

For Petitioner

:

Mr.A.Nagarajan

For Respondent

: Mr.K.Srinivasan,

Special Public Prosecutor (CBI)

1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.RC.No.583 of 2023

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed (directed) against the Order of

the trial Court passed in Crl.MP.No.7881 of 2018 dated 15.02.2023

dismissing the petition filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C.

2. The sum and substance of the revision petition is that the respondent

police on 26.08.2014 registered a case under Sections 7, 12, 13(2) r/w 13(1) d

of Prevention of Corruption Act against Dr.M.Manuneethi Cholan, Registrar of

Companies to Dr.M.A.M.Ramaswamy, Chairman of Chettinadu Group of

Companies and unknown others. After investigation, the prosecution has filed

a final report on 21.11.2015 showing Manuneethi Cholan/first accused, a

Public Servant and petitioner is the second accused, a private person. The

Court has taken final report on file on 18.01.2015. As per the final report,

Manuneethi Cholan, a Public Servant is shown as first accused. The petitioner

Rajendiran is shown as second accused and Dr.M.A.M.Ramaswamy whose

name found in the FIR shown in the second column of final report, since

died.

3. The contention of the petitioner herein is that the public servant/the

2/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.RC.No.583 of 2023

first accused/Manuneethi Cholan also passed away and so far, the trial Court

has not framed any charge. Since the public servant already passed away, the

statements recorded and the averments made in the final report does not make

out any offence as against this petitioner who is private individual worked as

an Assistant to the deceased M.A.M.Ramaswamy. While so, the discharge

petition filed before the trial Court and the same has been dismissed without

considering the legal impediment in prosecuting the sole surviving accused

who is the petitioner herein.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the

only incriminating material relied by the prosecution in the final report is the

so called telephonic conversation between this petitioner and few others.

Though in the course of investigation, the sample voice of this petitioner was

collected for comparison, the sample voice of Manuneethi Cholan was not

collected and therefore whatever material which the prosecution wishes to rely

upon are not admissible in evidence without proof of voice, the person who

respondended to the conversation of the petitioner.

3/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.RC.No.583 of 2023

5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI filed a detailed

counter stating that there is element of material evidence available to frame

charge against this petitioner, even though the other two accused died.

6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record

including the FIR, final report and the statement of the witnesses recorded

under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

7. Though several grounds raised in the revision petition, this Court after

going through the Statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of

Cr.P.C and the gist of the investigation report indicates that this petitioner

cannot be charged for any offence in isolation after on the demise of the other

two accused. With the available