HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Crl.R.C.No.254 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.No.5515 of 2021 K.Ponmudi                                        … Petitioner Vs. 17.In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the trial Court, dated 08.03.2021 in Crl.M.P.No.5302 of 2019 in Special Case No.3 of 2019 and the same is, hereby, affirmed.  Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed.  Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON        : 05.01.2022

PRONOUNCED ON : 11.11.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

Crl.R.C.No.254 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.No.5515 of 2021

K.Ponmudi                                        … Petitioner

Vs.

State rep. by,

Station House Officer, District Crime Branch, Villupuram.

Cr.No.19 of 2012.                … Respondent

PRAYER:  Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in Spl.Case.No.3 of 2019 on the file of the Learned Special Court to try criminal cases involving Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu cum Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram and set aside the order in Crl.M.P.No.5302 of 2019, dated 08.03.2021.

For Petitioner                           :     Mr.N.R.Elango, Senior Counsel for

Mr.G.Sriram

For Respondent                           :              Mr.Hasan Mohamed Jinnah,

State Public Prosecutor, assisted by

Mr.A.Damodaran,

Additional Public Prosecutor

*****

ORDER

This Criminal Revision has been filed to set aside the order, dated 08.03.2021, made in Crl.M.P.No.5302 of 2019 in Special Case No.3 of 2019, passed by the learned Special Judge (Principal Sessions Judge), Special Court to try criminal cases involving Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu cum Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram.

2.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner/A1 is facing trial in Special Case No.3 of 2019, for offence, under Sections 406, 420 and 379 r/w 120(b) of IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 4(1), 4(1)(A) r/w 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 r/w Rule 36(A) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1959 along with seven others/A2 to A8.  He further submitted that the then District Collector, Villupuram granted license to A2-Gowtham Sigamani on 04.10.2007 for quarrying red sand, for a period of three years, in respect of patta lands belonging to him.  Likewise, the District Collector, Villupuram also granted license to A2-Gowtham Sigamani on 01.12.2010, for a period of two years. Similarly, for A3-Jayachandran on 21.03.2007, the license was granted for quarrying red sand, for a period of three years, in respect of the patta lands and for A4-Raja Mahendran on 13.01.2009, for a period of three years and on 18.12.2009 for a period of three years for quarrying red sand in respect of the patta lands.  Admittedly, the quarry license for red soil was granted for the patta lands of A2 to A4.

3.The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the then District Collectors of Villupuram LW46 & LW47 granted license to A2 to A4 in accordance with law, after satisfying themselves with the compliance of the rules and regulations formulated under the relevant Acts and Rules.  The allegation against A2 to A4 is that with the help of A5 & A8, they excavated more red soil, without paying seigniorage fee and thereby, A2 took 23,094 and 1,50,433 lorry loads additionally and thereby, caused loss of revenue to the tune of Rs.2,65,58,100/- and Rs.17,29,97,950/- respectively.  Further, A2 took 16,556 lorry loads additionally and thereby, caused loss of revenue to the tune of Rs.1,90,39,400/- and total loss is Rs.19,20,37,350/-.  Likewise, A4 is said to have excavated more red soil without properly subscribing the seigniorage fee and thereby, A4 took 38,048 and 18,513 lorry loads additionally and thereby, caused a loss of revenue to the tune of Rs.4,37,55,200/- and Rs.2,12,89,950/respectively and total loss is Rs.6,50,45,150/-.  In the process of excavating red soil, A2 to A4 caused damage to the pathway to a length of 83 metres and thereby, caused loss to the tune of Rs.1,25,000/-.  Hence, all the accused caused total loss of revenue to the Government of Rs.28,37,65,600/-.  A6 and A7 are the accused for offence under Sections 353 & 506(1) of IPC apart from other offences, since they restrained and threatened the public servant when they went for inspecting the quarry of A2 to A4 to assess the damages and loss.

4.He further submitted that there was conspiracy between A1 to A5 & A8.  LW13, Revenue Divisional Officer, Villupuram issued a show cause notices to A2 to A4 under Rule 36(A) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 against them, for which, they gave their explanation to LW13, which is suppressed by the prosecution for the reasons best known.  In this case, LW13 initiated proceedings as per the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, but not the jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officers. The jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer is the competent person to levy any penalty for excavating more red soil.  Further, there was no complaint from any quarters as to raising or lifting of the red soil by A2 to A4 without payment of proper seigniorage fee.  Added to it, in this case, there is no material to connect the petitioner with regard to alleged conspiracy or alleged loss.  Admittedly, the red soil was excavated in the patta lands of A2 to A4, while that being so, the Government is not the owner of the red soil.  Further more, an erroneous calculation has been made with regard to seigniorage fee and thereby, huge loss projected against A2 to A4.

5.The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that to malign the reputation of the petitioner, who was the Member of Legislative Assembly and Minister, deliberately and wantonly assessed and calculated the alleged loss of red soil value without any basis and material.  On a demeanour, the learned Senior Counsel further submitted that if at all there have been any loss of seigniorage fee, it is the Revenue Divisional Officer, who is the competent person, to assess the seigniorage fee, evasion and levy penalty, as per law.  In this case, the Revenue Divisional Officer not passed any final order for alleged violation as per Rule 36(A) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959.  In view of no penalty being arrived to the show cause notice, which is the foundational aspects of the case, no prosecution can be launched against the accused and the above case itself is nothing but an arbitrary.  He further submitted that as per Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, there is a bar to take cognizance of the offence under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 based on the FIR.  If there is any contravention or violation of the Act and Rules, it is only the authorized person under the Act to file a complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate.  In this case, the respondent Police registered the case under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 along with IPC offences and the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988.  Both the offences under the Mines and Minerals

(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot be proceeded with, for the reason that no authorized person under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 had lodged the complaint in this case and no sanction for prosecution obtained to proceed under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which is sine quo non.  In view of the same, no case under the said provisions can be registered against the petitioner.  Further, the petitioner is attempted to be roped for offence under Section 120(B) of IPC along with other IPC offences. In this case, there is no iota of material either by way of statements or any documents, there is nothing to infer about any conspiracy.  Admittedly, the Tahsildar along with other officers had gone for inspection of quarry of A2 to A4, at that time, it is projected that the officials were restrained by some of the accused and threatened them from conducting inspection.  The Tahsildar is not the authority to conduct inspection under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1959.

6.The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the licensing authority LW46 & LW47 stated nothing about the petitioner exerting any pressure or directed them to issue license for quarry license in favour of A2 to A4.  In fact, LW46 & LW47 stated that the licensees to the quarry produced all relevant documents while executing license deed and thereafter, only license for quarry granted.  The other witness, prosecution relied on is LW9Krishnamoorthy, Deputy Director, Geology and Mines Department.  LW9 in his statement stated that when he visited the petitioner at his residence, he was informed by the petitioner/A1 that A2 to A4 would make application for license and he has to consider the same.  Whenever LW9 visited the petitioner’s residence or circuit house, he had seen A2 to A4 there.  When LW9 is not the licensing authority, there was no need for the petitioner to inform/instruct LW9 to consider the application for issuing license to his family members.  He further submitted that in the proceedings (LD9) of the Deputy Collector, Villupuram, it is mentioned that red soil available at the depth of 10 meters from the ground level and further old quarried pits are noticed.  The loss which is now calculated by the prosecution is for the entire quarried red soil and it is on assumption.  In support of the same, the learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “N.K.Ganguly Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi reported in (2016) 2 SCC 143” with regard to sanction for prosecution.  Taking into consideration the entire materials as a whole, there is no case as against the petitioner.  Hence, he prayed for setting aside the order of the trial Court, dated 08.03.2021.

7.The learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police submitted that the contention of the petitioner due to political animosity, the above case registered against the petitioner, is not proper.  Based on the complaint from the Public servant, the above case registered, on completion of investigation, charge sheet filed.  In this case, LW1 is the then Tahsildar, Vanur, who lodged the complaint on 22.09.2012, after conducting joint inspection along with Firkah Surveyor, Vanur, Village Administrative Officer, Poothurai and Village Assistant.  The Joint Inspection was conducted and show cause notice was issued to A2 to A4 for violation of quarry license. Though they received the show cause notice, failed to reply to the same. Hence, the petitioner’s contention that there is suppression of reply to the show cause notice, is not acceptable.  The statements of LW9 to LW11, the officials of the Geology and Mines Department confirmed the petitioner’s active role in committing the offence.  The petitioner gave confession statement in presence of LW18 & LW19, which discloses vital facts.  Pursuant to the confession statement, documents were recovered from him.  He further submitted that A2 is the son of the petitioner/A1, A3 is the friend of A1, A4 is the relative of A1, who all obtained quarry license from the Government to quarry red soil. Though A2 to A4 consented and gave undertaking to pay seigniorage fee, by way of deed of agreement, in favour of the Government, they failed to pay the same.  On the other hand, they excavated red soil over and above the

prescribed permit limit.

8.It is further submitted that the complaint lodged by LW1 discloses cognizable offences and offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and IPC

 

offences.  The Hon’ble Apex Court and High Courts held that when a Police officer files a report in a non-cognizable offence clubbed with cognizance offence, then the report can be treated as a complaint under Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C.  This principle would be applicable in the present case on hand.  He further submitted that the petitioner’s active role to favour his son, relative and friend/A2 to A4 clearly spoken by LW9, LW10, LW22 & LW23.  From the Joint Inspection Report, Observation Mahazar, dated 23.09.2002 and the sketch, the damage caused by rampant quarry to the pathway, is confirmed.  A letter was addressed by the Executive Engineer/EHV of Electricity Department, Government of Puducherry to the Deputy Collector, Villupuram complaining that high voltage electric tower likely to suffer damage due to rampant quarry activities of A2 to A4 without following the norms and procedures.  Further, there is a possibility of high voltage electric tower collapse at any time.  He further submitted that from year 2007 to 2010, A2 to A4 excavating the red soil over and above the permit limit, is confirmed during the Joint Inspection conducted by the officials from the Revenue and Mines Department.  When the petitioner was the Minister of Mines and Minerals, the total monitory loss of revenue caused to the Government is to the tune of Rs.28,37,65,600/-.

Initially, the final report was filed by the prosecution and thereafter, finding some documents in this case, the respondent Police filed supplementary final report.  The contention of the learned Senior Counsel in respect of sanction for prosecution is concerned, it is settled preposition that the sanction can be obtained at any stage of trial.  LW9 categorically stated that the petitioner instructed him to consider the application of his son and relatives/A2 to A4 in granting license.  When the Minister instructs so, there is no other option by the subordinates.  In this case, LW9, LW47 & LW47 are the subordinates to the Minister of A1.  LW22 and LW23 are the witnesses, before whom, the accused admitted about the role played by each of them in indulging quarry of red soil and violating the conditions of license and not paying the seigniorage charges and thereby, causing loss to the Government by several crores.

9.He further submitted that in this case, the petitioner was instrumental for granting license to his son/A2 and others.  The trial Court considering all these aspects and finding sufficient materials, dismissed the discharge petition. In this case, prima facie materials available to proceed against the petitioner and other accused.  Further, the statements of the Revenue and Mining

officials, District Collector and others clearly prove illegal quarrying of red soil by the petitioner, his son and relatives.  Further, it is a case of conspiracy,

of 25

which has to be decided only during trial and not at this stage.  It is not the case of the accused that they had obtained license for quarrying the red soil earlier in the patta lands.  That being so, how old quarried pits found in the lands, is not known and, for which, no answer or explanation by the accused. Thus, illegal quarry had been going on for years together.  He further submitted that after the petitioner became Minister, attempts made to cover up the illegal mining, which facts are to be looked into during trial on the evidence produced.  A passing reference made in the order by the trial Court that the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 does not attract, cannot be given undue importance.  The trial Court is yet to frame charges against the accused.  Only on framing of charges, whether at all the charges under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 are included or not is to be looked into.  At the stage of framing of charge, the Court need not go in detail about the veracity and otherwise of the statement of the witnesses and documents.

10.It is submitted that the trial Court considered the petitioner’s contention in detail referring to the documents and statement of witnesses and dismissed the discharge petition finding that A2 to A4 obtained license and

 

excavated the red soil from their own land over and above the permit limit and not paying the seigniorage fee and thereby, caused loss of revenue to the Government.  Added to it, the trial Court finding that the petitioner conspired and played active role in commission of various offences, dismissed the discharge petition, which need not be interfered with.  Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the revision.

11.This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

12.It is not in dispute that the petitioner was the Minister for Mines and Minerals Department for the period from 13.02.2007 to 15.05.2007.  A2 is the son of A1 and A4 is the brother-in-law of A2.  A3 closely associated with A1 in his political activities.  A5 was the person, who was directly looking after the quarry work of A2 to A4.  A6 is the family friend of A1 and A2.  A7 is the son of A5, who actively looked after the quarry work.  A8 is the co-brother of A1. Thus, all the accused are closely related and known to each other.  The license for quarrying red soil was granted to A2 to A4 while A1 was the Minster for the Mines and Minerals Department.  While LW9 was serving as Deputy Director, Geology and Mines Department in Villupuram region, he had to meet his Department Minister, the petitioner herein, often.  Whenever the petitioner/A1 visits Villupuram, either at his house or at the circuit house, he saw the other accused along with A1 in close quarters.  LW9 stated that the petitioner informed him directly that his son and his relative/A2 to A4 made applications for license to quarry red soil and he should issue license to them and not to disturb or interfere in their quarry activities.

13.The petitioner is said to have told LW9 that since he happens to be the Minister, he could not get license in his name.  Hence, the license was obtained in the name of his son and relatives/A2 to A4 implying that there should be no interference by the Mines and Minerals officials and others, in any manner in the mining and quarry activities of the other accused.  Further, LW9 stated that during the relevant period, only persons, who are known to the petitioner, were granted license for quarrying red soil.  LW9 confirmed about the complaint from the Executive Engineer, Puducherry Electricity Department to the Deputy Collector, Villupuram with regard to safety and security of high voltage electric tower.  This complaint was forwarded to the

Tahsildar to conduct spot inspection and to give a report.  LW10 stated that on

26.04.2011, he along with Tahsildar, Surveyor, Village Administrative Officer and Village Assistant from Vanur village conducted survey to assess the damage due to quarry of red soil.  During the assessment, it was found that over and above the permit limit, red soil was excavated by the accused, for which, no seigniorage fee paid, thereby, caused huge loss of revenue to the Government.  Till the petitioner was the Minister for the Mines and Minerals Department, no action could be taken against the accused.  After the petitioner demitting from the office, spot inspection could be conducted and report submitted.  LW12 is the Revenue Divisional Officer, who received the Joint Inspection Report, pursuant to which, he sent show cause notice to the licensees namely A2 to A4.  Though they sought time to give their reply, no proper reply was given.  Further, LW8-Mr.Kandhan, Deputy Director of Geology and Mining Department, Villupuram visited the quarries of A2 to A4 and calculated the seigniorage fee of Rs.1,150/- per load for 2,44,644 lorry loads dumped without permission in the five quarries of A2 to A4 and fixed Rs.28,34,40,500/- as loss of revenue to the Government and further for damage to the pathway, LW8 imposed penalty of Rs.25,000/- to each quarry, totally Rs.1,25,000/-.  In total, the quarry owners had to pay the sum of

Rs.28,37,65,600/-.

14.It is seen that the public servants, who conducted Joint Inspection, were restrained from carry out their official work and they were threatened by the accused.  When the petitioner was arrested, he gave confession statement, pursuant to the same, some documents collected confirming the commission of offence by the accused.  The then District Collectors, Villupuram (LW46 & LW47) stated about the issuance of license to A2 to A4, who are son and close relatives of the petitioner and also the conditions imposed in the license.  The trial Court in the impugned order, dated 08.03.2021 held that the offence under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 cannot be proceeded in the above case.  On the other hand, it had held that the offence under the IPC and the offence under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are made out and prima facie materials are found to that effect and proceed against the accused.  In this case, no sanction was obtained by the prosecution.  From the statement of witnesses and documents, it reveals the petitioner and other accused actively taking part in excavating the red soil in violation of license condition.  It is seen that the petitioner was the Minister of Mines and Minerals Department during the relevant period.  Hence, the petitioner, a public servant, clothed with public duties entrusted with public trust and responsibility, but he failed to safeguard the same.  It is seen that the petitioner is also facing trial for offence under Section 120(b) IPC, which is an offence by itself.  The prosecution on completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused listing LW1 to LW65 and with documents disclosing prima facie case against the petitioner herein.  The order of the trial Court is a well reasoned one.

15.The Hon’ble Apex Court in plethora of decisions, had held that the primary consideration at the stage of framing of charge is the test of existence of a prima facie case, and at this stage, the probative value of materials on record is not to be gone into.  Recently in the case of “State through Deputy Superintendent of Police Versus R.Soundirarasu etc., reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 741”, the Hon’ble Apex Court held under what circumstances, the discharge petition can be entertained.  The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:-

“69.The real test for determining whether the charge should be considered groundless under Section 239 of the CrPC is that whether the materials are such that even if unrebutted make out no case whatsoever, the accused should be discharged under Section 239 of the CrPC. The trial court will have to consider, whether the materials relied upon by the prosecution against the applicant herein for the purpose of framing of the charge, if unrebutted, make out any case at all.

70.The provisions of discharge under Section 239 of the CrPC fell for consideration of this Court in K. Ramakrishna and others v. State of Bihar and another, (2000) 8 SCC 547, and it was held that the questions regarding the sufficiency or reliability of the evidence to proceed further are not required to be considered by the trial court under Section 239 and the High Court under Section 482. It was observed as follows:-

“4.The trial court under Section 239 and the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not called upon to embark upon an inquiry as to whether evidence in question is reliable or not or evidence relied upon is sufficient to proceed further or not. However, if upon the admitted facts and the documents relied upon by the complainant or the prosecution and without weighing or sifting of evidence, no case is made out, the criminal proceedings instituted against the accused are required to be dropped or quashed. As observed by this Court in Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi, [1999 (3) SCC 259] the High Court or the Magistrate are also not supposed to adopt a strict hypertechnical approach to sieve the complaint through a colander of finest gauzes for testing the ingredients of offence with which the accused is charge. Such an endeavour may be justified during trial but not during the initial stage.”

71.In the case of State by Karnataka Lokayukta, Police

Station, Bengaluru v. M.R. Hiremath, (2019) 7 SCC 515, this

Court observed and held in paragraph 25 as under:-

“25. The High Court ought to have been cognizant of the fact that the trial court was dealing with an application for discharge under the provisions of Section 239 CrPC. The parameters which govern the exercise of this jurisdiction have found expression in several decisions of this Court. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on the assumption that the material which has been brought on the record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material, taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence. In State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan [State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709, adverting to the earlier decisions on the subject, this Court held: (SCC pp. 721-22, para 29) “29. … At this stage, probative value of the materials has tobe gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. In our opinion, what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. To put it differently, if the court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence on the basis of the materials on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the law does not permit a mini trial at this stage.””

72.The ambit and scope of exercise of power under Sections 239 and 240 of the CrPC, are therefore fairly well settled. The obligation to discharge the accused under Section 239 arises when the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be “groundless”. The Section mandates that the Magistrate shall discharge the accused recording reasons, if after (i) considering the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173, (ii) examining the accused, if necessary, and (iii) giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, he considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, i.e., either there is no legal evidence or that the facts are such that no offence is made out at all. No detailed evaluation of the materials or meticulous consideration of the possible defences need be undertaken at this stage nor any exercise of weighing materials in golden scales is to be undertaken at this stage – the only consideration at the stage of Section 239/240 is as to whether the allegation/charge is groundless.

73.This would not be the stage for weighing the pros and cons of all the implications of the materials, nor for sifting the materials placed by the prosecution- the exercise at this stage is to be confined to considering the police report and the documents to decide whether the allegations against the accused can be said to be “groundless”.

74.The word “ground” according to the Black’s Law Dictionary connotes foundation or basis, and in the context of prosecution in a criminal case, it would be held to mean the basis for charging the accused or foundation for the admissibility of evidence. Seen in the context, the word “groundless” would connote no basis or foundation in evidence. The test which may, therefore, be applied for determining whether the charge should be considered groundless is that where the materials are such that even if unrebutted, would make out no case whatsoever.

SPOPE OF EXCERICSE OF REVISIONAL POWER AT THE STAGE OF CHARGE

75.In Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., (2001) 9

SCC 631, this Court held as under:-

“3…..The revision power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated in the first information report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged.”

76.Thus, the revisional power cannot be exercised in a casual or mechanical manner. It can only be exercised to correct manifest error of law or procedure which would occasion injustice, if it is not corrected. The revisional power cannot be equated with appellate power. A revisional court cannot undertake meticulous examination of the material on record as it is undertaken by the trial court or the appellate court. This power can only be exercised if there is any legal bar to the continuance of the proceedings or if the facts as stated in the charge-sheet are taken to be true on their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged. It is conferred to check grave error of law or procedure.

77.This Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2018) 16 SCC 299, has held that interference in the order framing charges or refusing to discharge is called for in the rarest of rare case only to correct the patent error of jurisdiction.

16.From the decision cited above, it could be seen that the revisional power can only be exercised if there is any legal bar to the continuance of the proceedings or if the facts as stated in the charge sheet are taken to be true on their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged.  In this case, on consideration of the statement of the witnesses and documents produced by the prosecution, this Court finds that there are sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner.  The circumstances emerging from the record of the case, indicated the involvement of the accused persons in the alleged offence.  Hence, he cannot be discharged from the Special Case No.3 of 2019, on the file of the Special Judge (Principal Sessions Judge), Special Court to try criminal cases involving Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu cum Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram.

17.In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the trial Court, dated 08.03.2021 in Crl.M.P.No.5302 of 2019 in Special Case No.3 of 2019 and the same is, hereby, affirmed.  Accordingly, this

Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed.  Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

11.11.2022

Speaking order/Non-speaking order

Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No vv2

To

1.The Special Court to try criminal cases involving

Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of       Tamil Nadu cum Principal Sessions Judge,    Villupuram.

2.The Station House Officer,    District Crime Branch,    Villupuram.

3.The Public Prosecutor,    High Court, Madras.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. vv2

PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN

Crl.R.C.No.254 of 2021

11.11.2022

You may also like...