Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 80277
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
C.Chandrashekar – Appellant
Versus
State represented by, Inspector of Police, CBI/ACB/Chennai. – Respondent
Crl.A.Nos.31, 61, 49, 57, 43 and 48 of 2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.Xavier Felix, Mr.S.Karthikeyan, Mr.B.Priya, Mr.M.Aravind Kumar, Mr.K.Shankar, Mr.S.D.S.Philip
For the Respondents: Mr.N.Baaskaran
Criminal conspiracy and misappropriation by public servants confirmed, with valid sanction, but acquitted those lacking evidence of involvement.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2) coupled with Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B, 420 - Criminal conspiracy and misappropriation of Telecom goods by public servants - Conviction upheld for some appellants while others acquitted due to lack of evidence linking them to misappropriation or conspiracy. (Para 6)
(B) Sanction for prosecution - Validity argued regarding the competence of the authority granting sanction - Court held that the sanction was valid as it had been duly communicated by an authorized person. (Para 5.14)
(C) Involvement of accused officers in the misappropriation - Evidence established their roles in the conspiracy regarding false indents and diversion of goods. (Paras 5.23 and 5.24)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeals arise from conviction for conspiracy and misappropriation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. the prosecution presented evidence of conspiracy. (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments presented by defense counsel. (Para 4) |
| 4. court's observations on the evidence presented. (Para 5) |
| 5. conclusions drawn regarding the prosecutions evidence and appeals. (Para 6) |
COMMON JUDGMENT
A. The Appeals
All these appeals originate from the judgment dated 08.01.2014 in C.C. No.1 of 2003 on the file of the IX Additional City Civil Judge (Special Judge for CBI Cases), Chennai, which arises out of regular cases registered by the Respondent in RCMAI.36(A)/1999 and 51 (A)/1999. Final Reports were filed against 12 accused, and for some of the accused, charges were abated due to their deaths pending trial. Some of the accused were acquitted, but the appellants were convicted. The following tabular column reflects the rank, name, criminal appeal number, charged offences, conviction details, and sentences imposed on them.
1.1 As such, these appeals are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment.
B. The Case of the Prosecution:
2. On 31.08.1999, V. Eswaran (PW-3), the Director of Vigilance at Chennai Telecom Department, lodged a complaint stating that between April 1997 and July 1999, five accused individuals—Chandrashekar, Janardhanan, S.R.Nagarajan, P. Selvam, and Amar Singh—conspired. They raised false indentations for the Mysore Telecom circle and obtained goods such as cables, telephone poles, and line wires from the District Stores Depot in Chennai without approval from the Chief General Manager of the District Stores Depot in Calcutta. Deliveries were made on various occasions from 24.4.1997 to 21.7.1997. While consignments were meant to reach their intended destinations, approximately 26 consignments valued at Rs. 1,00,00,000/- were taken to unknown locations and misappropriated.
2.1 On the strength of the said above allegations, PW72. E.P.Suresh Kumar registered a regular case in RCMAI.36(A)/1999 for the alleged offences under Sections 120B r/w. 420 IPC, and Section 13(2) r/w. Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2.2 On 06.12.1999, upon receiving source information that a total of six accused conspired together and were raising indents to receive goods from the Stores, hired lorries from other transporters, and were not transporting the goods to their intended destination but instead misappropriating goods worth Rs.95,00,000/-, the same officer, PW-72 namely E.P. Suresh Kumar, registered another regular case in RCMAI.51 (A)/1999 for the alleged offences under Section 120B r/w 420 IPC, Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and under Section 420 IPC. Both cases were taken up for investigation, and a common final report was filed against 12 persons for the offences mentioned above.
C. The Trial & the Judgment:
3. The case was taken on file in C.C.No.1 of 2003 on 24.01.2003. After issuing summons, and after the accused appeared and provided copies, charges were framed on 04.07.2003 for the offences under Sections 120B r/w 420 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as well as under Section 420 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused denied the charges and stood trial.
3.1 Thereafter, the prosecution, to establish the charges, examined PW1 to PW72 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P408. When questioned about the incriminating evidence on record under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, all the accused denied it as false.
3.2 Thereafter, Kannan and Sathyanan Rajhans were examined as DW1 and DW2. Exhibits D1 to D4 were also marked on behalf of the defense. After the trial concluded and the Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused presented their arguments, the trial Court rejected the objections regarding the sanction and found it to be proper. The Court considered
