Madras High Court
A.G.Chandrasekar vs The State on 5 June, 2020
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.O.P.No.7958 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 26.11.2019
PRONOUNCED ON : 05.06.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.7958 of 2019
A.G.Chandrasekar ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State,
Rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Commercial Crime Investigation Wing CID,
Chennai. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records of charge sheet in C.C.No.91 of
2011 on the file of the Special Court for the cases under Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.Samuel Raja Pandian
For Respondent : Mr.M.Prabhavathy
Additional Public Prosecutor
*****
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.91 of 2011 on the file of the Special Court for the cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Chennai. 1/40 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.7958 of 2019
2.The facts of the case are briefly stated hereunder:-
(i)All the accused persons viz., A1 to A19 entered into a criminal conspiracy to do an illegal act viz., (i) to enter into an agreement on buy back arrangement with TANFED by M/s Maxwell Exim Limited, one of the M.V.R.Group of Companies, to procure the imported inferior quality of raw cashew nuts belonging of M.V.R.Group of Companies which were lying unsold in Tuticorin port, by dishonestly disposing of the funds of TANFED in violation of by-laws, Government Order, Registrar's Circular, unusual purchase procedures and provisions of Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988 and with no intention to lift the procured raw cashew nut and to cause wrongful loss to TANFED, (ii) to commit criminal misconduct by abusing their position as public servants and obtaining pecuniary advantage to M.V.R.Group of Companies without any public interest, (iii) to make false documents/entries in the records of the said three C0-operative Marketing Societies, TANFED, Tuticorin and Tamilnadu Warehousing Corporation, Tuticorin Port and to cover up the fraud and to use the same as genuine document and to falsify the relevant accounts, such as Sales Invoices, Purchase Bills, Stock Register, Purchase Register, Inward Register, Warehouse Receipts, etc. and (iv) to abet each other in the commission of above said 2/40 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.7958 of 2019 offences.
(ii)In pursuance of the conspiracy, the agreement dated 10.01.1996 was prepared by A1, A3, A7 and A8 for procurement of raw cashew nut under buy back arrangement for Rs.10 crores and was executed by A4/the petitioner herein in contravention of the by-laws which stipulates that the procurement should be made from affiliated societies and their members only to the best advantage, Government Order Ms.No.325, Co-operation Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 15.04.1993, which says that prior approval of government is necessary for the contracts exceeding Rs.1 crore and the instructions given in letter Rc.No.43310/95 I P3 dated 17.03.1995 of Registrar of Co-operative Societies which says that where the value of purchase exceeds Rs.10 lakhs, a committee is to be appointed to assist the Special Officer, with a view to obtain pecuniary advantage to M/s.Maxwell Exim Limited.
(iii)Further, without waiting for the compliance of the liftment schedule dated 18.03.1996 given by A19 to TANFED, the TANFED officials viz., A2, A3, A4, A7 and A8 approved the draft second agreement on 22.03.1996 for further coverage of 1200 M.Tonnes of raw cashew nuts to the value of Rs.4.60 3/40 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.7958 of 2019 crore at the rate of Rs.38.20 per k.g. On the very same day, the original agreement and indemnity bond were signed by the petitioner/A4 on behalf of TANFED and A8 as witness on behalf of TANFED and A19 on behalf of M/s.Maxwell Exim Limited which would come into effect from 22.03.1996 and be in force upto 31.05.1996. Neither A2 who took charge as Special Officer, TANFED on 05.03.1996 nor A3, A4, A7 and A8 obtained prior approval from the Government as per G.O.Ms.No.325, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 15.04.1993 for the procurement of cashew nut to the tune of Rs.4.60 crore. As the value of contract exceeded more than Rs.1 crore, prior approval from government is necessary as stated above. They did not insist the production of quality certificate though samples which were taken by M/s.S.G.S.India Limited, the authorised company under the said agreement for taking samples for quality and weight. However, A1 to 4, A7 and A8 released the funds to Regional Office, Tuticorin without getting the purchase details from M/s.Maxwell Exim Limited as per the terms and conditions of the said two agreements.
(iv)In furtherance of the above said criminal conspiracy and in the course of the same transaction at the same time and place, the petitioner/A4, 4/40 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.7958 of 2019 being the public servant in his capacity as Secretary, Tamilnadu Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited, Chennai abetted A1 in the commission of criminal breach of trust by signing the agreement representing TANFED for the procurement of raw cashew nut to the value of Rs.10 crores for M/s.Maxwell Exim Ltd. on buy back arrangement in contravention of by-laws, Government Order, Registrar's instruction usual purchase procedure etc. and issued cheques even before the receipt of purchase details from M/s.Maxwell Exim Ltd. for production of quality certificate. He further abetted A2 in the commission of criminal breach of trust by approving the office note and draft agreement for further procurement of raw cashew nut of 2000 M.Tonnes to the value of Rs.4.60 crore by signing the original agreement dated 22.03.1996 on behalf of TANFED in contravention of bylaws, Government Order, Registrar's instruction, usual purchase procedure etc. He also signed the said agreement even before the lifting of the raw cashew nut by M/s.Maxwell Exim Ltd for production of quality certificate and issued cheques even before the receipt of purchase details from M/s.Maxwell Exim Limited as per the terms and conditions of agreement and has not insisted the M/s.Maxwell Exim Ltd. to deposit the security deposit at the rate of 7.5% for total purchase of Rs.3.03 crore as per second agreement.5/40
http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.7958 of 2019
(v)Accordingly, in furtherance of the above said criminal conspiracy and in the course of the same transaction, A1 to A4 abused their official position as public servants by entering into agreements dated 10.01.1996 and 22.03.1996 with M/s.Maxwell Exim Limited in procuring imported and inferior quality of raw cashew nut at an exorbitant rate in contravention of the by laws, Government Order, Registrar's Instruction, usual purchase procedure and terms and conditions of agreements and obtained pecuniary advantage for M/s.Maxwell Exim Limited, M/s.Anderson Industries International Limited and M/s.Enkay Foods Limited of M.V.R.Group of Companies to the tune of Rs.10.88 crore without any public interest and thereby, A4 committed the offence under Sections 120-B r/w 409, 409 r/w 109 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On completion of investigation in Crime No.1 of 1998, charge sheet came to be filed in C.C.No.1 of 2000 before the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai. Thereafter, on formation of Special Court for cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the case in C.C.No.1 of 2000 has been transferred to the file of the Special Court for cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai as C.C.No.91 of 2011.
6/40 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.7958 of 2019
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the main charge alleged against the petitioner is that he is the signatory to the agreement which has resulted in causing loss to the TANFED Limited. According to the prosecution, he has mainly failed to insist and obtain quality certificate of the raw cashew nut as well as to insist upon the Security Deposit from the accused company. He further submitted that the entire process of entering into the contract for the supply and purchase of raw cashew nut from the accused company were all taken as policy decision by way of proceedings involving higher officials than the petitioner herein. In fact, the Special Officer of TANFED, under whom the entire proceedings had taken place is by and large deciding authority on the various policy decisions taken on behalf of the Government. The petitioner is a far less ranked subordinate than the principal decision maker i.e. the Special Officer/The Board of Committee for taking policy decision who in turn is aided by his immediate subordinates, who are five in numbers viz. General Manager-Marketing, General Manager- Fertilizer, General Manager-Accounts, General Manager-Seeds and Pesticides and General Manager-Engineering, who in turn are all higher in rank than the petitioner herein. Thus, all the decisions taken by the Special Officer/Board of Committee of TANFED are to be strictly adhered to by the subordinate 7/40 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.7958 of 2019 officers working therein.
4.The learned counsel further submitted that the alleged occurrence is said to have taken place on 10.01.1996 i.e., 7 days from the date of appointment of the petitioner in TANFED i.e., on 03.01.1996. Thus, the petitioner has no discretion whatsoever to examine the proceedings on the policy involved thereupon or to state and project his views either obligatory or contrary to the above decision taken at the highest level.
5.The learned counsel further submitted that the main duties of the Secretary/Petitioner of TANFED are as follows:
“(i)Generally to conduct the business of the Federation to implement the policy and programme laid down by the Management.
(ii)To supervise and direct the day-to-day business of the Federation in accordance with policy laid down by the Management and appoint such staff as may be necessary for the purpose, with the approval of the Management.
(iii)To issue receipts and sign cheques on behalf of the Federation among other duties as assigned in the Job Chart.” 8/40 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.7958 of 2019
6.He further submitted that the petitioner as Secretary of Tamil Nadu Cooperative Marketing Federation, Chennai filed Civil Suit in C.S.No.304 of 1997 before this Court for recovery of money and obtained decree. A detailed enquiry was conducted under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperatives Act, 1983 by the enquiry officer on 21.04.1998, wherein, the Surcharge proceedings and disciplinary action against the concerned officials was given. As regards the petitioner no such finding for dereliction of duty, except the departmental proceedings subsequently dropped against the petitioner an appeal to the Secretary to the Government, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Chennai in G.O.(D).No.257, dated 02.12.2002, the proceedings were dropped against the petitioner and no department or surcharge proceedings pending against him. The learned counsel further submitted that the charges against the petitioner in the departmental proceedings and the criminal Court are identical and same. The Government had dropped the proceedings and exonerated the petitioner from all the charges. Hence, nothing survives to be decided by the criminal Court with the same set of facts. Earlier the petitioner had filed Crl.O.P.No.20509 of 2015, in which this Court by order dated 03.11.2016 dismissed the petition for non prosecution. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to file the above quash 9/40 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.7958 of 2019 petition.
7.He further submitted that since the petitioner is one of the accused in this case, his promotion was not considered. Thereafter, on the intervention of the Court by order dated 02.12.2003 in W.P.No.13573 of 2000, the petitioner's name was included in the panel and he was promoted. Now, the petitioner is in the stage of retirement. Earlier, the petitioner has filed Crl.O.P.No.423 of 2007 before this Court, seeking completion of the proceedings in C.C.No.1 of 2000 on the file of the VI Additional Judge, Chennai within a stipulated period and petitioner is not the reason for the delay. In this case, the charges against the petitioner are only VI and VII under Section 409 IPC r/w 109 of IPC and there is no entrustment to the petitioner and hence no misappropriation. P.W.13, the Enquiry Officer of the Co-operative Department has vouched the finding of the departmental enquiry and stated that there is no disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner and accordingly, he prayed for quashing of the criminal proceedings against him.
8.In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following citations that there have been undue delay in 10/40 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.7958 of 2019 progress of the trial which is in violation of fundamental right.
1.Hussainara Khatoon and others Versus Home Secretary, State of Bihar reported in (1980) 1 SCC 81.
2.Abdul Rehman Antylay and others Versus R.S.Nayak and another reported in (1992) 1 SCC 225.
3.Janata Dal Versus H.S.Chowdhary and others reported in (1992) 4 SCC 305.
4.State of Haryana and others Versus Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335.
5.P.Ramachandra Rao Versus State of Karnataka reported in (2002) 4 SCC 578.
6.Abdul Rehman Antulay and ors. Versus R.S.Nayak & Anr. reported in 1992 (1) SCC 225.
9.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State submitted that in this case, there are 18 accused and the delay in completion of the trial is due to the act of the accused. Earlier the accused has filed discharge petitions before the Court below one after another and were prolonging the trial. Now, the petitioner and other accused persons cannot claim benefit for the said delay created by them. In this case, LD3, LD4 and LD9 are the documents, which would prove the involvement of the 11/40 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.7958 of 2019 petitioner with the other accused and the case of the petitioner cannot be considered in isolation and it is to be viewed along with other accused. The petitioner has conspired with other accused, thereby caused loss of Rs.11 crores to TANFED limited.
10.He further submitted that the prosecution examined nearly half of the total witnesses cited in the list of witnesses. The total loss of TANFED due to the buyback agreement entered between TANFED Maxwell Exim Ltd., is to the tune of Rs.12.48 crores during the year 1995-96, since the accused failed to follow the rules and regulations scrupulously. Now, the investigating officer is to be examined and the trial would be completed within a period of three months. At this stage, entertaining this petition would amount to short circuiting the proceedings.
11.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the materials available on record.
12/40 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.7958 of 2019
12.The petitioner was the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies. He was appointed as Secretary of Tamil Nadu Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited (TANFED) on 03.01.1996 and he served till 18.06.1997. The TANFED is headed by the Special Officer/Board. The Special Officer is in the rank of Additional Registrar of Cooperative Societies. The Board of Management consists of General Manager (Marketing) in the cadre of Joint Registrar/General Manager (Marketing), Manager (Fertilizer) in the cadre of Joint Registrar/General Manager (Fertilizer), Manager (Accounts) in the cadre of General Manager (Finance and Accounts), Manager (Seeds) in the cadre of Joint Director/General Manager Seeds and Pesticides, General Manager (Engineering).
13.The cheque singing authority is vested with the General Manager (Finance and Accounts). The petitioner as Secretary is to execute the order of the Board and he signed the cheque only after the verification of payment vouchers and approval of the General Manager (Finance and Accounts). The petitioner is not the decision making authority either in the board or in the payment. The TANFED is a structured organization wherein the role and responsibilities of each and every officer are clearly defined. It is the Board 13/40 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.7958 of 2019 headed by the Managing Director/Special Officer, other members of the Board who deliberate and take decisions. These officers are superior officers to the petitioner. The petitioner never took part in the decision making of the management. The job chart/Ex.P823 of the Secretary/petitioner in Tamil Nadu Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited is as follows:-
1) Generally to conduct the business of the Federation to implement the policy and programme laid down by the management for the purpose.
2) To supervise and direct the day to day business of the Federation in accordance with the policy laid down by the Management and appoint such staff as may be necessary for the purpose with the approval of the management.
3)To exercise control and supervision over the staff of federation.
4)To receive all money on behalf of the Federation and issue and arrange for the issue of receipt thereof and pay all costs of management and working expenses out of the funds of the federation according to the decisions of the management.
5)To assist the management in calling for application for various categories of services by direct recruitment, subject to the cadre strength fixed by the Registrar and to assist the adhoc committee in the selection of candidates, adopting the communal rotation.
6)To put proposals for the appointment by promotion of 14/40 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.7958 of 2019 the various categories of services in the Federation including the Regional officers and the unit.
7)To draw increment on the due dates for the staff of the Federation at H.Q. drawing pay upto Rs.1,000/- and to process and obtain the orders of management in respect of officers drawing salary exceeding Rs.1,000/- per mensum.
8)To effect transfers, obtaining the orders of the management of all the posts under the Federation, save incumbents in Government posts.
9)To maintain the Attendance Register of the Staff and to review modity the absentees and to sanction casual, earned and other kinds of leave.
10)To open tapals and confidential letters and to send it for the perusal of the Chief Executive.
11)To sanction advances like Festival, Cycle; and Marriage Advances to staff of the TANFED and for officers drawing, a basis pay not exceeding Rs.1,000/-.
12)To records and maintain the minutes book of the committee/Special Officer.
13)To record and maintain minutes of the proceedings of the General Body.
14)To prepare the annual Administration Report of calling for the particulars from the H.Q and subordinate officers.
15)To initiate disciplinary proceedings against the employees of the TANFED.
16)To pay salary and other allowances of establishment 15/40 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.7958 of 2019 and other costs like rent, electricity bills, telephone bills ect.
17)To institute and to defend suits on behalf of TANFED.
18)To assist the Chief Executive to depute officers to the various training courses.
19)To send such periodicals as have been prescribed by the Registrar and the Government.
20)To issue receipts and sign cheques on behalf of the Federation.
21)To attend to all other service matters of the employees of the Federation.
22)To suggest, adopt and to get approval by the General Body amendments to bylaws and to have them registered.
23)To deal with petitions received from several quarters and to initiate action against the offenders.
24)To secure the confidential reports, assessment reports in respect of TANFED and Government Staff.
25)To tone up general administration of the Federation.
26)To convene the general body of members atleast once a year and arrange for placing of all matters, the approval of budget estimate, excess expenditure incurred, preparation and placing of annual administrative reports.
27)Convening meeting of Special Officer's monthly staff meeting atleast once in two months.
28)Maintain liaison with the employees Union and examine the demands and place them before the Managements for consideration.16/40
http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.7958 of 2019
29)To attend to grievances of the staff and to take appropriate remedial action.
30)To attend to all matters relating to strike, lock outs and other labour disputes at Head Office.
31)To make arrangements for visists, and inspection of officers, National Cooperative Development Corporation and officers of Government of India and State Government.
32)To exercise control over the use of vehicles owned by Tamil Nadu Cooperative Marketing Federation.
14.The gravamen of the charge Nos.VI & VII against the petitioner is as follows:-
“Charge No.VI agaisnt Accused No.4 Thiru G.Chandrasekaran U/S 409 IPC RW109 IPC:
In furtherance of the above said criminal conspiracy and in the course of the same transaction time and place, Accused No4, Thiru G.Chandrasekaran, Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies being the public servant in his capacity as Secretary, Tamilnadu Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited, Chennai abetted Accused No.1 Thiru S.Damodaran (Deceased) in the commission of criminal breach of trust mentioned in Charge No.1I by (i) signing the agreement representing TANFED for the procurement of raw cashew nut to the value of Rs.10 crore for M/S. Maxwell Exim Limited on buy back at arrangement in contravention of by- 17/40 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.7958 of 2019 laws, Government Order, Registrar's instruction usual purchase procedure etc. (ii) issuing cheques even before the receipt of purchase details from M/s.Maxwell Exim Ltd as per the terms and conditions of agreement (iii) not insisting M/s.Maxwell Exim Ltd for production of quality certificate and thereby it appears that Accused No.4 Thiru.G.Chandrasekaran has committed an offence punishable U/s 409 IPC r/w 109 IPC.
Charge No.VII agaisnt Accused No.4 Thiru G.Chandrasekaran U/S 409 IPC RW109 IPC:
In furtherance of the above said criminal conspiracy and in the course of the same transaction at the same time and place, Accused No.4 Thiru.G.Chandrasekaran, Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Socieites being the public servant in his capacity as Secretary, Tamilnadu Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited, Chennai abetted Accused No.2 Thiru.M.M.B.Shivaprakasam in the commission of criminal breach of trust mentioned in charge No.III by (i) approving the office note and draft agreement for further procurement of raw cashewnut of 2000 M.Tonnes to the value of Rs.4.60 crore and signing the original agreement dated 22.3.96 on behalf of TANFED in contravention of bylaws, Government Order, Registrar's instruction, usual purchase procedure etc. (ii) signing the said agreement even before the lifting of the raw cashewnut by M/s.Maxwell Exim Ltd. As 18/40 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.7958 of 2019 stated in the liftment schedue. (iii) issuing cheques even before the receipt of purchase details from M/s.Maxwell Exim Limited as per the terms and conditions of agreement and (V) not insisting the M/s.Maxwell Exim Ltd ot deposit the security deposit at the rate of 7.5 % for total purchase of Rs.3.03 crore as per second agreement and thereby it appears that Accused No.4 Thiru G.Chandrasekaran has committed an offence punishable under Section 409 IPC r/w 109 IPC.”
15.The charges against the petitioner is that the petitioner has signed the agreement, representing TANFED for procurement of raw cashewnut to the value of Rs.10 crore from M/s.Maxwell Exim Limited on buy back arrangement in contravention of by-laws, Government Order, Registrar's instruction usual purchase procedure etc.; issued cheques even before the receipt of purchase details as per the terms and conditions of agreement , not insisted for production of quality certificate, further, approved the office note and draft agreement for further procurement of raw cashewnut of 2000 metric tonnes to the value of Rs.4.60 crore and signed the original agreement dated 22.03.1996 on behalf of TANFED in contravention of bylaws, Government Order, Registrar's instruction, usual purchase procedure etc., signed the said agreement even before the lifting of the raw cashewnut as stated in the 19/40 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.7958 of 2019 liftment schedule and has not insisted for quality certificate and issued cheques even before receipt of purchase details and has also not insisted to deposit the security deposit at the rate of 7.5 % for total purchase of Rs.3.03 crore as per second agreement.
16.Further for and the purchase of cashewnut, TANFED has been initiated in the year 1995. On 23.09.1995, the representative of MVR Industries/Managing Director had met TANFED officials namely Special Officer, General Manager (Finance and Accounts), General Manager (Marketing) as could be seen from file No.1641195/CM and meeting of MVR Industries and officials of TANFED was held continuously. On 26.09.1995 the General Manager (Marketing) had visited MVR Industries and had meeting with its Managing Director. On 27.09.1995, TANFED had sent letters to the Regional officers enquiring about availability of cashewnuts. The petitioner had joined as Secretary on 03.01.1996 and by the time the negotiations, modalities and the procedure to be followed had been discussed and decided. On 10.01.1996 the draft agreement was finalized for purchase of cashewnuts and 3000 metric tonnes and a buy back scheme. The Special Officer, General Manager (Marketing), General Manager (Finance) had approved the draft 20/40 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.7958 of 2019 agreement and the management Board has also approved the same. The petitioner as Secretary representing TANFED had signed the agreement with M/s.Maxwell Exim Limited and he had nothing more to do with the said agreement.
17.Further the agreement dated 10.01.1996 has been approved by his Superior Officers and the Board. Duty is cast upon the petitioner he being the Secretary of TANFED to execute the order of the Board had signed the same. The transfer of funds and the purchase of cashewnut and the payment vouchers have been signed and approved by the Special Officer and General Manager Finance. On 15.03.1996, further procurement of 2000 metric tonnes as per the conditions of agreement dated 10.01.1996 was approved by the Special Officer, General Manager (Marketing), General Manager (Finance and Accounts). Further, the General Manager (Marketing) had put up a note that he had visited Tuticorin on 02.03.2006 and has held meeting with the officials of the M/s.Maxwell Exim Limited and verified the document, satisfied with the same, thereafter, made recommendation for additional purchase of 1200 metric tonnes. The draft for second agreement was approved by the legal adviser. Thereafter, it was signed by the Manager Marketing, General 21/40 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.7958 of 2019 Manager (Marketing), General Manager (Finance and Accounts), Special Officer and the petitioner as Secretary has signed the agreement on 22.03.1996.
18.Apart from signing of the agreements dated 10.01.1996 and second agreement dated 22.03.1996, the petitioner has not involved in any criminal conspiracy and misconduct. Signing the payment vouchers prepared based on the note file and approval given by the concerned General Manager (Finance and Accounts), Special Officer, the petitioner could not be charged for offence of conspiracy, criminal misappropriation and abetment. Admittedly, in this case the other officers who had approved and signed the draft of the agreement, payment vouchers were all higher officials to the petitioner and the question of abetment does not arise. Further the petitioner was not entrusted with any property and he has to act as per the directions of the Board and hence, criminal misappropriation would not arise.
19.Further, there is no iota of evidence that the petitioner had conspired with the other accused. Even before the petitioner joined TANFED the process of purchase of cashewnut have already been initialized and finalized. The 22/40 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.7958 of 2019 petitioner has joined as Secretary in TANFED on 03.01.1996. Within seven days, the draft agreement was approved by the Management and the petitioner representing TANFED had signed in the agreement.
20.The petitioner for non supply of cashewnut and failure in adhering to the tender/agreement procedure he had filed civil suit before this Court in C.S.No.304 of 1997 against M/s.Maxwell Exim Private Limited and others for recovery of the due amount of Rs.9,30,64,953.26. This Court by judgment dated 13.12.2002 had passed a decree in favour of TANFED against the M/s.Maxwell Exim Limited. The petitioner was proceeded under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act and enquiry had been conducted between 18.12.1996 and 15.09.1997. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies in e/f.176868/96 jg[F 2, dated 21.04.1998 had recommended for surcharge proceedings. In the said report of the Registrar of Cooperative, the petitioner’s name does not find place and there was no surcharge proceedings against the petitioner. The enquriy under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperation Societies Act, is a detailed enquiry, wherein witnesses were examined, documents were verified. The recovery proceedings are dealt in detail. The enquiry officer forwarded the report of the Registrar and the Registrar of 23/40 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.7958 of 2019 Cooperative Society confirmed the enquiry officer report. In this case, admittedly, there is neither surcharge nor recovery proceedings pending against the petitioner.
21.Further, the Registrar of Cooperative Society had initiated proceedings under Section 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, against the petitioner which are identical with the charges he is facing before the criminal Court. The charge memo under Section 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules against the petitioner is extracted as follows:-
“,izg;g[?1 3/1/96 Kjy; ehsJ njjp tiu jkpH;ehL Tl;Lwt[ tpw;gid ,izaj;jpd; brayhsuha; gzpg[hpe;J tUk; jpU/re;jpunrfud;. Jizg;gjpthsh; kPJ Vw;gLj;jg;gl;Lk; Fw;wr;rhl;Lfs;/ Fw;wr;rh;lL jpU/$p/re;jpunrfud;. Jizgjpthsh;. muR Miz kw;Wk; gjpthsh; mth;fspd;
mwpt[iufSf;Fg; g[wk;ghf bghWg;gw;w Kiwapy;
bray;gl;L. jkpH;ehL tpw;giz ,izak; bgUk;
el;lk; mila fhuzkhf ,Ue;Js;shh;/
,izg;g[?2
Fw;wr;rhl;Lf;fhd rhl;Liu
24/40
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.No.7958 of 2019
jpU nf/re;jpunrfud;. Jizgjpthsh;.
jkpH;ehL Tl;Lwt[. tpw;gid ,izaj;jpd;
brayhsuhf 3/1/1996 Kjy; ehsJ njjp tiu
bjhlh;e;J gzpahw;wp tUfpwhh;/
jkpH;ehL Tl;Lwt[ tpw;gid ,izaj;jpd;
Jid tpjp vz;/28(V)d; go ,izaj;jpd; 'fkpl;o' tFf;Fk; jpl;l';fs; kw;Wk; bfhs;iffis bray;gLj;JtJ kw;Wk; Jiz tpjp vz;/28(gp) ,d;go ,izaj;jpd; md;whl eilKiwapid ,af;FtJ. fz;fhdpg;gJ brayh; vd;w Kiwapy;
md;whl bghWg;g[ Mfk;/ nkYk; ,izaj;jpid
Jiz tpjp vd;/28(o)d;go ,izaj;jpd;
gpzpahsh;fis fl;Lg;ghL bra;tJ. ,th;fspd;
gzpapid nkw;ghh;it bra;tJ Mfpait ,tuJ
flik/ Jiz tpjp vz;/28(vg;) ,d;go
,izaj;jpd; nghpy; tHf;Ffs; bjhlh;tJk;.
bjhlug;gLtJk; ,th; bgahpy; ,Uf;Fk;/
M/s.nkf;!;bty; vf;rpk; epWtd ,af;Feh;
jpU/tp/gp/cwhud; mth;fSld; ,izak; fr;rh
Ke;jphp bfhs;Kjy; bra;tJ bjhlh;ghd 10/1/96
Kjy; 22/3/96 ehspl;l xg;ge;j';fspy; jkpH;ehL
Tl;Lwt[ tpw;gid ,izaj;jpw;fhf ,th;
ifbaGj;jpl;Ls;sh;/ Kjy; xg;ge;jk; (10/1/96
ehspl;lJ) U:/10 nfho tiuapYk; ,uz;lhk
xg;ge;jk; (22/3/96 ehspl;lJ) U:/4/60 nfho
tiuapYk; fr;rh Ke;jphp bfhs;Kjy; bra;a
Vw;gLj;jg;g;lJ/
25/40
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.No.7958 of 2019
gjpthsh; mth;fspd; e/f/43310-95 ,/bgh/3
ehs; 17/8/95d;go ntshz; tpisbghUs; bfhs;Kjy; U:/10/00 ,yl;rj;jpw;F kpifg;gLk;nghJ ,jw;fhd gjpthsh; mikj;Js;s fkpl;oapd; m';fpfhuk; bgw ntz;Lk;/ Tl;Lwt[ r';f';fs; bra;a[k; U:/1 nfhof;F nkyhd midj;J bfhs;KjYf;Fk; murpd;
m';fPfhuk; bgw ntz;Lk; vd;w mwpt[iufs; muR Miz vz;/325. Tl;Lwt[. czt[ kw;Wk; Efh;nth;
ghJfhg;g[j;Jiw. ehs; 15/4/1993 tH';fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ nkw;go mwpt[iufs; midj;J filgpof;fg;gl;Ls;sdth vd;gij M/s.nkf;!;bty;
vf;rpk; epWtdj;jpdUld; bra;Jbfhz;l
xg;ge;j';fspy; ifbaGj;jpLtjw;F Kd;g[
,izaj;jpd; brayhsh; vd;w Kiwapy;
jpU/nfh/re;jpunrfud;. Jizg;gjpthsh; cWjp
bra;J bfhs;stpy;iy/
jkpH;ehL Tl;Lwt[ tpw;gid
,izaj;jpypUe;J. fr;rh Ke;jphp bfhs;Kjy;
bra;a brd;idapYs;s jkpH;ehL khepy jiyik
Tl;Lwt[ t';fpapy; ,izak; itj;Js;s elg;g[f;
fzf;fpypUe;J bjhiffs; J}j;Jf;Fo kz;ly
mYtyfj;jpw;F khw;wk; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/
,jw;fhf ,iza jiyik mYtyfk;. jkpH;ehL
khepy jiyik Tl;Lwt[ t';fpapy; itj;Js;s
elg;g[f; fzf;fpypUe;J fhnrhiyfis (cheques)
“yourself” vd;W vGjp brd;idapy; cs;s jkpH;ehL 26/40 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.7958 of 2019 khepy jiyikf; Tl;Lwt[ t';fpf;F tH';fp cs;sJ/ ,jid bgw;Wf;bfhz;l jkpH;ehL khepy jiyikf;Tl;Lwt[ t';fp bjhiffis rpjk;gudhh;
khtl;l kj;jpa Tl;Lwt[ t';fpapy; J}j;Jf;Fo
kz;ly mYtyfk; itj;Js;s elg;g[f; fzf;F
vz;/688f;F khw;wk; (Transfer)bra;Js;sJ/
jkpH;ehL Tl;Lwt[ tpw;gid ,izak;.
JkpH;ehL khepy jiyik Tl;Lwt[ t';fpapd;
brd;id jiyik mYtyfj;jpy; itj;Js;s
elg;g[f; fzf;fpy; nghpyhd gpd;tUk; fhRz;ofspy; jpU/nfh/re;jpunrfud;. ,izaj;jpd; brayhsh;
vd;w Kiwapy; ifbaGj;jpl;Ls;shh;/
fhRz;o njjp fhrz;o vz;/ fhRz;o
fhRz;o
bjhif
tH';Fk;
gjpntL gf;f
vz;
19.01.1996 574058 96,00,000 42
25.01.1996 583415 96,00,000 44
30.01.1996 583427 96,00,000 44
01.02.1996 583440 96,00,000 44
12.02.1996 583572 90,00,000 48
13.02.1996 583584 96,00,000 49
19.02.1996 583641 84,00,000 50
22.02.1996 583679 96,00,000 52
26.02.1996 583702 46,00,000 52
06.03.1996 583773 90,00,000 50
13.03.1996 583841 90,00,000 57
26.03.1996 585181 22,50,000 61
02.04.1996 585232 90,00,000 63
nkw;go tptug;go fr;rh Ke;jphp bfhs;Kjy; bra;a 27/40 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.7958 of 2019 nghlg;gl;l fhrz;ofspy; jpU/nfh/rj;jpunrfud;.
Jizg;gjpthsh; ,izaj;jpd; brayhsh; vd;w
Kiwapy; bghJ nkyhsh; (epjp kw;Wk; fzf;F)
my;yJ bghJ nkyhsh; (th;j;jfk;) my;yJ Jiz
nkyhsh; fzf;F my;yJ bghJ nkyhsh;-cuk;
my;yJ g[r;rp kUe;J Mfpa VnjDk; xU
mYtyUld; ifbaGj;jpl;Ls;shh;/
jkpH;ehL Tl;Lwt[ tpw;gid ,izaj;jpd;
brayhsh; vd;w Kiwapy; jpU/nfh/re;jpunrfud;.
Jizg;gjpthsh; M/s.nkf;!;bty; vf;rpk;
epWtdj;Jls; 10/1/1996 kw;Wk; 22/3/1996 Mfpa
njjpfspy; Kiwna 10 nfho kw;Wk; 4/60 nfho
fr;rh Ke;jphp bfhs;Kjy; bra;a[k; xg;ge;j';fspy;
ifbaGj;jpl;Ls;hh;/ ,e;j ,uz;L xg;ge;j';fspYk;
epge;jid vz;/4,y; M/s.nkf;!;bty; vf;rpk;
Ke;jphpapd; juj;jpida[k;. vilapida[k;
M/s.v!;/$p/v!;/ (,e;jpah) ypl; vd;w epWtdk; K:yk;
Ma;t[ bra;a Vw;ghLfs; bra;a[k; vd cs;sJ/
epge;jid vz;/3d;go M/s.nkf;!;bty; epWtdk;
bfhs;Kjy; ika';fSf;F Ke;jphpapd; juj;jpida[k;.
tpiyiaa[k; eph;zak; bra;a jdJ gpujpepjpia
mDg;g[k; vd;W cs;sJ/ epge;jid vz;/5y;
bfhs;Kjy; ika';fspy; Ke;jphpapd; juj;ij
eph;zak; bra;tJ nkf;!;bty; vf;rpk; epWtdj;jpd; gpujpepjpfs; vd;Wk;. Vjphpfhyj;jpy; Ke;jphpapd; juk; kw;Wk; tpiy bjhlh;ghf ve;j tHf;Fk; vGg;g ,ayhJ vd;Wk; cs;sJ/ RU';fr; brhy;ypd; fr;rh 28/40 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.7958 of 2019 Ke;jphp bfhs;Kjy; KGtJk; nkf;!b ; ty; vf;rpk;
ypl; trnk xg;gilf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ fr;rh Ke;jphp
bfhs;Kjy; tpiyia tH';FtJ kl;Lk; jhd;
jkpH;ehL Tl;Lwt[ tpw;gid ,izaj;jpd; gzp/
M/s.nkf;!;bty; vf;rpk; ypl; epWtdj;jpd; rl;l
Mnyhrfh; jpU/tp/v!;/Rg;gpukzpak; mth;fs;.
jkpH;ehL Tl;Lwt[ tpw;gid ,izaj;jpd; rl;l
Mnyhrfh; jpU/Mh;/Rg;gpukzpak;. mth;fSf;F
28/6/96 md;W vGjpa fojj;jpy; khh;f;bfl; tpiy fr;rh Ke;jphpf;F ld; xd;Wf;F U:/25.000 cs;s nghJ U:/38.226 f;F bfhs;Kjy; bra;tJ jkpH;ehL Tl;Lwt[ tpw;gid ,izaj;jpw;F bjhpa[k; vd;Wk; epjp trjpfs; bgw ruf;fpd; tpiyia Tljyhfg;
nghl;L bra;ag;gl;l xg;ge;jk; ,J vd;W
bjhptpj;Js;sjhy;/
The transaction itself is merely to inflate the value of the goods and practically a market rigging contract for the purpose of availing bridge finance” vd;W ,e;j tHf;fwp'h; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;sjhh;/ nkYk; Ke;jphpapd; tpiy fl;og;nghlg;gl;Ls;sjhy; ,e;j xg;ge;jj;jpd; K:yk;
ve;j chpikiaa[k; ,izak; mila KoahJ
vd;Wk;
In fact as stated earlier, the prices had been inflated. In the said circumstances the agreement itself would be practically illegal and no rights will flow out of the contract vd;W Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ/ 29/40 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.7958 of 2019 nkw;go tptuj;jpid M/s.nkf;!;bty; vf;rpk;
jkpH;ehL Tl;Lwt[. tpw;gid ,izaj;jpw;F
vGjpa jdJ 9/8/96 ehspl;l fojj;jpy; cz;ik
vd xj;Jf; bfhz;lJ/ ,e;j fojj;jpd; thrfk;
tUkhW/
we have made it absolutely clear that the raw cashewnut were procured at an inflated rate for the purpose of availing bridge finance as a stop gap arrangement and the same is hence a market rigging transaction, which is not valid in the eye of law. Hence no rights will flow from the said contract enabling you to act upon the same.
jkpH;ehL Tl;Lwt[ tpw;gid ,izaj;jpd;
rl;l mnyhrfh; ,izaj;jpd; jdp mYtyUf;F
vGjpa 11/8/96 ehspl;l jdJ rl;lk; fUj;Jiuapy;
M/s.nkf;!n
; ty; vf;rpk; 10/1/96 kw;Wk; 22/3/96
ehspl;l xg;ge;j';fis rpwpJk; kjpf;ftpy;iy
vd;Wk; M/s.nkf;!;bty; vf;rpk; epWtdj;jpd; xnu
nehf;fk; jkpH;ehL Tl;Lwt[ tpw;gid
,izaj;jpid Vkhw;WtJjhd; vd;Wk;. Fuj;J
bjhptpj;Js;shh;/ fr;rh Ke;jphpapd; juk; kw;Wk;
tpiy bjhlh;ghf ve;j jhth tpisa[k;
vjph;fhyj;jpy; vGg;g KoahJ vd;w epge;jidf;F
cl;gl;L nkw;go ,uz;L xg;ge;j';fSk; (10/1/96
kw;Wk; 22/3/96) M/s.nkf;!;bty; vf;rpk;
epWtdj;Jld; ,izaj;jpdhy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJk;.
fr;rh Ke;jphpapd; bfhs;Kjy; tpiy fpnyh
30/40
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.No.7958 of 2019
xd;Wf;F U:/25 jhd; vd;gJ ,izaj;jpd;
mYtyh;f;F Kd;Tl;ona bjhpa[k; vd;gJk;. nkw;go
M/s.nkf;!;rpk; vf;rpk; ypl;/ ,d; rl;l Mnyhfhpd;
28/6/96 ehspl;l fojk; kw;Wk; ,e;j epWtdj;jpd;
9/8/96 ehspl;l fojk; Mfpaitfs; K:yk;
bjspthfpd;wJ/ ,jdhy; jkpH;ehL Tl;Lwt[
tpw;gid ,izaj;jpw;F <Lfl;l ,ayhJ bgU
el;lk; Vw;gl;Ls;sJ/”
22.On the representation and explanation by the petitioner to the Principal Secretary, Cooperative, Food and Consumer Protection Department the charge was dropped as not proved. The Government in G.O.(D).No.257, dated 02.12.2002 had dropped the proceedings and exonerated the petitioner.
The Principal Secretary on perusal and analysis of all the documents pertaining to the transaction and the rules and responsibilities of the petitioner had found that the petitioner had not indulged in any misconduct during his service. The petitioner, Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies filed O.A.No.9766 of 1999 before the Administrative Tribunal praying for a direction to conclude the enquiry forwarded and pass final order on the disciplinary proceedings within a stipulated period in M.A.No.4005 of 1999. In the said O.A.No.9766 of 1999 the tribunal on 23.07.1999 passed orders 31/40 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.7958 of 2019 directing the respondent/the Secretary to Government, Food and Consumer Protection and Registrar of Cooperative Societies to complete the enquiry within a period of six months. Then too, the petitioner’s name was not included in the panel of promotion. Thereafter the petitioner filed contempt application No.35 of 2000 against the authorities for not implicating the order of the tribunal dated 23.07.1999. The tribunal in the contempt application vide order dated 14.03.2000 granted six months to comply the earlier order passed. Against which the Government had filed a Writ Petition for quashing the tribunal’s order dated 23.07.1999 and 14.03.2000 in W.P.No.6298 of 2001, in which the Division Bench of this Court on 12.04.2001 directed to complete the enquiry within a period of three months. The Government dropped the proceedings against the petitioner and issued G.O.(D).No.257 dated 02.12.2002. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Crl.O.P.No.423 of 2007 before this Court seeking direction for earlier disposal of C.C.No.1 of 2000 which was pending trial on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Court Chennai. This Court by order dated 23.03.2000 directed the trial Court to complete the trial within a period of six months. Then too, trial was not completed within the stipulated time. The petitioner filed W.P.No.17602 of 2010 for the second time, since the name of the petitioner was not considered for promotion in the 32/40 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.7958 of 2019 panel of the year 2010. This Court by order dated 21.06.2011 dismissed the Writ Petition of the petitioner, giving direction to the trial Court to dispose of C.C.No.1 of 2000 within a period of four months. The petitioner, thereafter, filed W.P.No.17697 of 2018 for including the name of the petitioner for panel for promotion for the post of Additional Registrar of Cooperative Societies. This Court by order dated 05.03.2019 granted liberty to the Government and Registrar of Cooperative Societies to promote the petitioner as Additional Registrar subject to the decision of the proceedings in C.C.No.1 of 2000 which was pending on the file of the Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai and further, directed to complete the trial within a period of four weeks.
23.The evidence of the witnesses and documents so far recorded have been produced. On perusal of the same it is seen that except for signing both the agreements as Secretary of TANFED, the petitioner has no other role in execution of the agreements. Likewise from the payment vouchers it is seen that the petitioner has signed the cheques after the same was verified and approved by the concerned superior officers. There is positive evidence to 33/40 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.7958 of 2019 show that before finalization of agreement, the file will be deliberated by the management Board and Managing Director/Special Officer. The file will not be sent to Secretary/petitioner. This procedure was followed for agreements dated 10.01.1996 and 22.03.1996. Further, the evidence is that the Secretary does not participate in any of the business meeting. The other allegation that non collection of security deposit is not correct, the petitioner had collected 75% of the security deposit on the running contract. None of the witnesses examined so far has stated anything with regard to misappropriation of funds and thereby the petitioner being benefited. Further the disciplinary proceeding charges as well as the criminal proceeding charges are identical, one and the same. It is admitted that the petitioner had been discharged from the departmental proceedings and the Government had issued G.O.(D).No.257 dated 02.12.2002. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable.
24.The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.S.Rajya Versus State of Bihar reported in (1996) 9 SCC held as follows:-
“The standard of proof required to establish the guild in a criminal case is far higher than the standard of proof required to establish the guild in the departmental proceedings.34/40
http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.7958 of 2019 In the instant case the charge in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal proceedings is one and the same. If the charge which is identical could not be established in a departmental proceedings and in view of the admitted discrepancies in the report submitted by the valuers one wonders what is there further to proceed against the appellant in criminal proceedings.
The appellant case can be brought under more then one head of guidelines laid down in Bhajan Lal case for quashing of a complaint/FIR.”
25.Following the above said judgment, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.10183 & 10817 of 2009 in the case of S.P.Ganasen and anr. Versus State by, the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Trichy reported in 2010-2-L.W.(Crl.) 1183, quashed the criminal proceedings and the accused therein were exonerated from the charges levelled against them in the disciplinary proceedings.
26.Further the Madurai Bench in Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.18221 and 18222 of 2013 in P.Jegadeesan Versus the Inspector of Police, Commercial Crime Investigation Wing (CID), Tiruchirapalli reported in 2015-L.W-(Crl.) 582 35/40 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.7958 of 2019 has held as follows:-
“6.It is not in dispute that there was a large scale of misappropriation in the Co-operative Society, for which, several persons have been identified as accused and one such person is the petitioner, who is A3 in the Calendar Case, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Musiri. It is not a private dispute between the two persons, which ultimately lands up before the Judicial Magistrate. A serious offence has been committed in the Co-operative Society for which, the Deputy Registrar, who is an officer from the Government, had been appointed under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co- operative Societies Act, to go into the irregularities and he has given a finding that the petitioner was over all incharge but, he cannot be blamed. That apart, in the departmental enquiry against the petitioner, the petitioner has come out with clean hands and hence, the contention of the learned Government Advocate that the findings of the departmental proceedings may not have a baring on the charges framed against the petitioner in the criminal case will have no baring. It is otherwise, in case, a person is acquitted in a criminal case, it is not a bar for the department to proceed against an employee or an officer departmentally. If an employee is acquitted of the charges in the departmental proceedings, more so, in this case, the proceedings under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil 36/40 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.7958 of 2019 Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, have been decided in favour of the petitioner, the Co-operative Society, being a wing of the Government, cannot be allowed to contend that the findings of the departmental proceedings will not have a baring in the criminal case, which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Musiri.
7.From the narration of the events, more particularly, from report of the Deputy Registrar, under Section 81 it is clear that the provision of Sections 477(a) and 409 of IPC., is not attracted, as there is no iota of evidence under 81 report that there was criminal breach of trust on the part of the petitioner and that there was a fraud committed by him, which helped the other accused to commit the so called falsification of accounts, fabrication of documents, misappropriation of funds etc. The Supreme Court, in a decision in P.S.Rajya Vs. State of Bihar reported in (1996 (9) SCC 1). The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:-
"17.At the outset, we may point out that the learned counsel for the respondent could not but accept the position that the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in a criminal case is far higher than the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in the departmental proceedings. He also accepted that in the present case, the charge in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal proceedings is one and the same. He did not dispute the findings rendered in the departmental proceedings and the ultimate result of it. On these premises, if we proceed further then 37/40 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.7958 of 2019 there is no difficulty in accepting the case of the appellant. For if the charge which is identical could not be established in a departmental proceedings and in view of the admitted discrepancies in the reports submitted by the valuers one wonders what is there further to proceed against the appellant in criminal proceedings"
8.From the above it is clear that the ultimate result of the departmental proceedings has to be accepted, there is no need to proceed further against the accused in the criminal proceedings. Hence, I am of the considered view that the findings of the departmental enquiry may not be admissible cannot be correct and I find much force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and I allow the criminal Original Petition, as prayed for. This order does not preclude the Judicial Magistrate, Musiri from proceeding with other accused in accordance with law as they are not parties before this Court. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”
27.From the above it is clear that there is no need to proceed further against the petitioner in Criminal proceedings. Hence, the proceedings in C.C.No.91 of 2011 pending on the file of the Special Court for the case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is hereby quashed as against the 38/40 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.7958 of 2019 petitioner/A4 alone. This Criminal Original Petition is allowed, accordingly.
05.06.2020 Speaking order/Non-speaking order Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No vv2 To
1.The Special Court for the cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Chennai.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Commercial Crime Investigation Wing CID, Chennai.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
39/40 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.7958 of 2019 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
vv2 PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN Crl.O.P.No.7958 of 2019 05.06.2020 40/40 http://www.judis.nic.in