Madras High Court
Venkatraja vs The State Rep. By on 15 September, 2014
Author: M.Venugopal
Bench: M.Venugopal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Date: 15.09.2014 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Crl.R.C.No.609 of 2014 Venkatraja ... Petitioner/A3 -Vs- The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Chennai. ... Respondent/Complainant Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 & 401 Cr.P.C., praying to set aside and reverse the order of the IX Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai dated 25.03.2014 in Crl.M.P.No.166 of 2013 in C.C.No.32 of 2012. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Ravi Raja For Respondent : Mr.N.Chandrasekaran Spl. Public Prosecutor (CBI cases) Date of Reserving orders : 03.09.2014 ------- O R D E R
The Petitioner/A3 has preferred the instant Criminal Revision Petition before this Court as against the order dated 25.03.2014 in Crl.M.P.No.166 of 2013 in C.C.No.32 of 2012 passed by the Learned IX Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai.
2. While passing the impugned orders dated 25.03.2014 in Crl.M.P.No.166 of 2013 in C.C.No.32 of 2012 (filed by the Petitioner /A3, praying for discharging him from the main case), in paragraph No.8, the Learned IX Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai had inter alia observed that ... Further as rightly argued by the Public Prosecutor, the prosecution has placed adequate prima facie materials in the matter to proceed further against the petitioner. With reference to the various claims made by the petitioner, the same can all be finally adjudicated and determined only on the basis of the materials to be produced by the prosecution and the accused during the trial..., and further in paragraph No.9, it had also among other things observed that ..... this Court finds that the prosecution has projected prima facie materials to proceed further against the accused...., and consequently dismissed the petition.
3. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/A3, the Petitioner is not a Government employee and not related to A1 and A2 and further, he is not involved in amassing of the wealth by the 1st Accused.
4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that one S.Jaganath, S/o. Late T.S.Ragavan, based on the petition (Crl.M.P.No.1700 of 2011) filed by the Inspector of Police, SPE/CBI/EOW, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai, filed under Section 306 of Cr.P.C., praying 'tender of pardon', was granted, as per the order dated 07.06.2011 of the Learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, under Section 306 (1) Cr.P.C.
5. Further, based on the petition (Crl.M.P.No.1137 of 2011) filed by the Additional Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Chennai, the accused Ramraj @ Kuwait Raja @ K.P.Ramaraj, S/o. Pillaiyar Raja, was granted 'tender of pardon', under Section 306 (1) Cr.P.C., on 06.06.2011 by the Learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.
6. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner filed discharge petition before the trial Court assigning valid reasons thereto. But the trial Court had not taken into account the valid reasons assigned by the Petitioner in proper and real perspective and consequently, passed an order of dismissal of the petition dated 25.03.2014.
7. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner forcibly submits that the Petitioner had no role to play in the pending proceedings in C.C.No.32 of 2012 on the file of the trial Court and therefore, the Petitioner should not face an unnecessary ordeal and mental agony in regard to the pending criminal proceedings on the file of the trial Court.
8. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that even as per the prosecution case the Petitioner/A3 had neither lent his bank account nor received any commission for handing over the Demand Drafts to the 1st Accused. Therefore, there is no 'MENS REA' and as such the question of abetment does not arise in so far as the Petitioner is concerned. In this regard, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relies on the decision in State of Rajasthan Vs. KESA, reported in 2002 Crl.Law Journal 432 (Raj), wherein it is held as follows:
27. In order to constitute abetment, the abettor must be shown to have 'intentionally' aided the commission of the crime. Mere proof that the crime charged could not have been committed without the interposition of the alleged abettor, is not enough compliance with the requirements of Section 107, IPC.
9. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had only handed over the Demand Drafts in good faith to the 1st accused and when that be the fact, framing of charges against the Petitioner is unlawful one, besides, the same being a miscarriage of justice.
10. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, proceeds to project an argument that as per the prosecution case, the Approver Ramraj @ Kuwait Raja @ K.P.Ramaraj, has lent his bank account to the 1st accused and the Approver Jaganath, lent his bank account to the 1st accused and received commission for the same. Also that, as per the case of prosecution, the property at Kodaikanal was registered in the name of Ganesh Ram, the brother-in-law of the Approver Ramraj @ Kuwait Raja @ K.P.Ramaraj. When the Petitioner, had not lent his account and not received commission and also not registered the property in his name, then, framing of charges against him is not correct in the eye of Law.
11. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the bank statement of Approver Ramraj @ Kuwait Raja @ K.P.Ramaraj, clearly shows that no amount was deposited in his account on 29.07.2005 and while so, the allegation of the investigating authority that the Petitioner had deposited Rs.15 Lakhs on that day was misleading and a story created for the purpose of foisting the present case against the Petitioner.
12. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner strenuously submits that the Petitioner/A3 neither held any property for the 1st accused nor any movable property belonging to A1 was recovered from his possession.
13. Per contra, the Learned Special Public Prosecutor (CBI Cases) for the Respondent/Complainant contends that during investigation, it was revealed that the Petitioner/A3 had, in conspiracy with other private persons viz., K.P.Ramaraj and Jaganath, who subsequently turned Approvers, abetted the 1st accused (K.Suresh) in acquiring assets disproportionate to his known source of income.
14. Further, the investigation revealed that during 2005, the 1st accused using his relations with K.P.Ramaraj @ Kuwait Raja, asked him to lend his Bank account for depositing the unaccounted cash of the 1st accused for the purpose of house at Plot No.B-3, Kodaikanal House Building Co-op. Colony, Kodaikanal. In pursuance of the conspiracy, Venkatraja, the petitioner had brought Rs.15 lakhs on 29.07.2005, given by the 1st accused to the Canara Bank, IIT Branch, Chennai, where K.P.Ramaraj @ Kuwait Raja (Approver) was having an account and deposited the same in this account.
15. Added further, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent brings it to the notice of this Court that on 06.09.2005, the Petitioner, obtained three Demand Drafts totalling Rs.15.9 Lakhs in favour of Ms.Priya Viswanath and Ms.Preethi Viswanath and subsequently a deed for sale of property at Plot No.B-3, Kodaikanal House Building Co-op. Colony, Kodaikanal was executed in favour of P.K.Ganeshram, brother-in-law of K.P.Ramaraj @ Kuwait Raja (Approver). Also on 20.06.2007, P.K.Ganeshram, in turn executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of Y.Geetha (A2, wife of the 1st accused).
16. According to the Respondent, the investigation further brought forth that during 2009, the Petitioner approached Jaganath (Approver) on behalf of the 1st accused and had requested to lend his bank account for the purpose of laundering the ill-gotten money of the 1st accused to which Jaganath agreed and allowed the 1st accused to use the accounts in Syndicate Bank, Teynampet Branch, Chennai for a commission. Also, it came to light that it was the Petitioner/A3, who had approached Jaganath (Approver) on behalf of the 1st accused K.Suresh and also later introduced A1 to the Approver. The 1st accused had told him about the unaccounted money which he wanted to deposit in the account of Jaganath for obtaining Demand Drafts and also promised him commission for the said work.
17. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent proceeds to state that on 07.05.2009, the Petitioner brought Rs.46.65 Lakhs in cash received from the 1st accused which was deposited (LD-39 to LD-44) into the accounts of S.Jaganath in the aforesaid bank. Further on the same day, Jaganath took 5 Demand Drafts amounting Rs.45 Lakhs (LD-51 to LD-55) in the name of the 2nd accused (wife of the 1st accused).
18. Apart from the above, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that on 23.05.2009, the Petitioner brought another lot of money amounting to Rs.46.27 Lakhs (LD-45 to LD-49) received from the 1st accused to Syndicate Bank, Teynampet branch, where Jaganath received the money and deposited it in the said accounts standing in his name and that of his firms. On the same day, Jaganath took 5 Demand Drafts amounting to Rs.45 Lakhs (LD-56) in favour of the 2nd accused and gave the same to the Petitioner. In fact, the investigation revealed that the 2nd accused deposited all the 11 Demand Drafts during May 2009 and June 2009 into her SB Account No.30171088336 maintained with Central Bank of India, Aminjikarai Branch, Chennai. The proceeds of these Demand Drafts were utilised for making payments through cheques amounting to Rs.1.2 Crores to C.Senthil Kumar as consideration for the purchase of the house at Kottivakkam, Chennai, in the name of the 2nd accused.
19. The pith and substance of the stand taken on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant is that the Petitioner played a crucial role in helping the 1st accused in parking his unaccounted money with Jaganath, the Approver, and was active in getting the documents processed for the purchase of the house in the name of the 2nd accused with the money provided by the 1st accused. Indeed, the statement of Jaganath, who turned Approver also confirms the role of the Petitioner in the present case.
20. The core stand of the Respondent is that the investigation conducted by the Respondent/Complainant shows that the Petitioner had a role of an 'Abettor' in amassing wealth by the 1st accused, which he could not properly account. Also that, the Petitioner played an active role in visiting the Sub Registrar's Office, Kodaikanal, where he met the sellers of the property. Also that, at the instance of Ganeshram, brother-in-law of Ramaraj, the Approver in the case and the Petitioner, that Ganeshram had agreed to act as the purchaser of the property at Plot No.B-3, Kodaikanal House Building Co-op. Colony, Kodaikanal on behalf of the 1st accused.
21. Even LW-29, Manimaran had specifically mentioned that the Petitioner deposited Rs.15 Lakhs in the SB account of K.P.Ramaraj as per the direction and also transferred Rs.2.4 Lakhs from his OD Account No.27 and also to issue 33 Demand Drafts worth Rs.17,32,937/- to the sellers of the Kodaikanal Property. Further, LW-5, Jaganath had also confirmed that Venkatraja had told that he would bring cash of Rs.1.5 Crore and the 1st accused had also given the details of transactions that took place in his accounts in Syndicate Bank, Teynampet Branch, Chennai.
22. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent contends that LW-10, K.Susheela and LW-28 Varadarajan had stated that an amount of Rs.15 Lakhs was deposited into SB NRO Account of K.P.Ramaraj in Canara Bank, IIT, Chennai on 29.07.2005. That apart, LW10, K.Susheela has stated that the debit for issuing 3 Demand Drafts for making payment to the sellers of the property was ratified by K.P.Ramaraj on 10.10.2005. Furthermore, LW-29, had also confirmed that the bank having received a telephone request from K.P.Ramaraj for the above transaction had also identified the Petitioner as the person who deposited the amount of Rs.15 Lakhs and also has collected 3 Demand Drafts worth Rs.17,32,937/- on 06.09.2005. LW47, had also stated that he was instructed by K.P.Ramaraj to help the 1st accused as per the instructions of the Petitioner.
23. In effect, the stand of the Respondent is that the Petitioner had a major role to play in the transaction that took place, resulting in the acquisition of properties by the 1st and 2nd accused. Further, he was fully aware that the transaction involved in ill gotten money of a senior officer of the IAS and the transaction using such money amounted to crime.
24. Also, it is represented on behalf of the Respondent that in the instant case, apart from the confession of the Approvers K.P.Ramaraj and Jaganath other witnesses had spoken about the Petitioner in the involvement of the transactions of the accused persons.
25. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent relies on the order dated 01.08.2014 in Crl.R.C.168 of 2014 passed by this Court, wherein in Paragraph No.70, it is observed as under:
70. On a careful consideration of respective contentions and also this Court, taking note of an overall assessment of the facts and circumstances of the present case in an integral manner, comes to an irresistible conclusion that after framing of 'charge', there cannot be a discharge and further, this Court opines that at the time of framing of charge, a Court of Law is to look into the records of the case (including the documents filed by the prosecution under Section 173 Cr.P.C) and oral hearing of an accused but nothing beyond that. Moreover, in the present case on hand, in C.C.No.35 of 2012 on the file of the trial Court, admittedly, witnesses P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined in full (barring P.W.4 was examined in chief but not cross examined). As on date, the main case is in Part-Heard stage. In view of the admitted position that in the present case, necessary charges were framed against the Petitioner/A3 and other accused and when the main case in C.C.No.35 of 2012 on the file of the trial Court is pending at Part-Heard stage, this Court holds that the trial of the main case should reach its logical conclusion. Viewed in that perspective, this Court opines that although the Petitioner/A3 had filed Cr.M.P.No.810 of 2012 on 16.10.2012 before the trial Court prior to framing of charges, on 14.03.2014, he cannot seek a plea of discharge and his only remedy is to take part in the trial proceedings of the main case because of the simple reason that trial of the main case had commenced and to proceed further in the manner known to law and in accordance with law. Looking at from that angle, the Revision Petition fails.
26. At this juncture, this Court very relevantly points out that at the initial stage if there is strong suspicion which leads a Court of Law to think that there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. Even a very strong suspicion cemented on materials before the concerned Court is sufficient for framing of charge. Where there is prima facie material to frame a charge against the accused, charge cannot be said to be groundless and accused cannot be discharged under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., in the considered opinion of this Court. Also, it is not the stage for weighing the pros and cons of all the implications of the materials not for sifting the materials presented by the prosecution. In fact, the exercise to be carried out by the Court at the stage of Section 239 Cr.P.C., must be confined to consider the police report and the documents to determine whether the allegations against the accused are 'Groundless' or there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence. Ofcourse, presumption therein is always a rebuttal one for which the accused ought to be provided with an opportunity to take part in the trial proceedings. Undoubtedly, a Court of Law would frame charge if there are grounds for proceeding against the accused for having committed the offence alleged against him, as opined by this Court.
27. It cannot be forgotten that when a Court of Law deals with an application/petition for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C., it need not undertake a detailed evaluation of the materials or meticulous consideration of the possible defences need to be undertaken at this stage. The exercise of weighing materials in 'Golden Scales', is certainly not to be undertaken at the time of framing of the charge. While framing the charge, the trial Court is expected to apply its mind to the facts of the case keeping in view the essential ingredients of the offence for which the accused is sought to be charged. The proper test for deciding whether the charge should be considered 'Groundless' is that where the materials are such that even if unrebutted make out no case whatsoever.
28. On a careful consideration of respective contentions, and in view of the fact that the Respondent / Complainant, has projected prima facie / Ex facie materials to proceed further against the Petitioner/A3, this Court comes to an inescapable conclusion that the Crl.M.P.No.166 of 2013 in C.C.No.32 of 2012 filed by the Petitioner/A3, seeking discharge from the case is not maintainable in the eye of Law. In fact, on going through the impugned order dated 25.03.2014 in Crl.M.P.No.166 of 2013 in C.C.No.32 of 2012 passed by the trial Court, this Court does not find any material irregularities or patent illegalities in the eye of Law. Per contra, the same is in order. Resultantly, the Criminal Revision Petition fails.
29. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. The order passed by the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.166 of 2013 in C.C.No.32 of 2012 is confirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in this revision. It is made clear that the dismissal of the Criminal Revision Petition would not preclude the Petitioner/A3 to raise all factual and legal pleas before the trial Court in C.C.No.32 of 2012 on the file of the Learned IX Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai and to seek proper remedy, in accordance with Law, If he so desires / advised.
15.09.2014 Index :Yes Internet : Yes ars To
1. The IX Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai.
2. The Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Chennai.
3. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
M.VENUGOPAL,J ars Pre-delivery order in Crl.R.C.609 of 2014 15.09.2014