Madras High Court
P.Sivagnanam vs State: By Deputy Superintendent Of ... on 30 August, 2016
Author: R.Subbiah
Bench: R.Subbiah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Orders reserved on : 11.08.2016)
Dated : 30.08.2016
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH
Crl.R.C.No.698 of 2009
and
Crl.O.P.Nos.2898, 23761, 25054 & 32319 of 2014
and
Crl.O.P.No.21917, 21918 & 21919 of 2015
and
M.P.No.1 of 2009 in Crl.R.C.No.698 of 2009
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014 in Crl.O.P.No.2898 of 2014
1.P.Sivagnanam ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.2898/2014
2.A.Sathyanathan ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.23761/2014
3.V.Durairaj ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.25054/2014
4.V.Veera Chellaiah ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.32319/2014
5.C.Rosammal ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.21917/2015
6.V.Murugesan ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.21918/2015
7.K.Viswanathan ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.21919/2015
8.N.Chinnasamy ... Petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.698/2009
Vs.,
1.State: by Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption,
Dharmapuri,
Dharmapuri District. ... Respondent in Crl.O.P.Nos.2898, 23761,
25054/2014 & 21917 - 21918/2015
and Crl.R.C.No.698/2009
2.State: by Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption,
Cuddalore. ... Respondent in Crl.O.P.No.32319/2014
Crl.O.P.Nos.2898, 23761 & 25054/2014 have been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.18 of 2008 pending on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri.
Crl.O.P.Nos.21917 to 21919 of 2015 have been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the criminal proceedings in new C.C.No.21 of 2008 (Old C.C.No.122 of 2006) pending on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri.
Crl.O.P.No.32319 of 2014 has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the criminal proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.3 of 2003 pending on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore.
Crl.R.C.No.698 of 2009 has been filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order dated 10.12.2008 in C.M.P.No.41 of 2008 in C.C.No.18 of 2008 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri.
Appearance
Mr.M.R.Jothimanian for the petitioner in Crl.R.C.
Mr.S.Vijayakumar for the petitioners in all the above Crl.O.Ps.
Mr.P.Govindarajan, App, for the respondent.
* * * * *
COMMON ORDER
Criminal Original Petition Nos.2898, 23761 & 25054 of 2014 have been filed by the petitioners, who have been arrayed as A15, A12 & A4 in C.C.No.18 of 2008 pending on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri, seeking to quash the said criminal proceedings. They were working as i)Assistant, Taluk Office, Dharmapuri and ii)Village Administrative Officer, Reddihalli Village (now Ujjarahalli Village), Dharmapuri District and iii)Tahsildar, Pennagaram, Dharmapuri District, respectively, at the relevant point of time.
2.Criminal Original Petition Nos.21917 to 21919 of 2015 have been filed by the petitioners, who have been arrayed as A4, A3 & A2 in new C.C.No.21 of 2008 (Old C.C.No.122 of 2006) pending on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri, respectively, praying to quash the criminal proceedings as against them. They were working as i)Assistant, RDO's Office, Krishnagiri, Dharmapuri District, ii)Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Uthangarai, Dharmapuri District & iii)Village Administrative Officer, Uthangarai, Dharmapuri District, respectively, at the relevant point of time.
3.Crl.O.P.No.32319 of 2014 has been filed by the petitioner, who has been arrayed as 2nd accused in Spl.C.C.No.3 of 2003 pending on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings as against him. He was serving as Tahsildar, Thittagudi Taluk, Cuddalore District at the relevant point of time.
4.Crl.R.C.No.698 of 2009 has been filed by the petitioner, who has been arrayed as 11th accused in C.C.No.18 of 2008 pending on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri, challenging the order dated 10.12.2008 in C.M.P.No.41 of 2008 in C.C.No.18 of 2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri, in and by which his petition filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., for discharge was dismissed. He was working as VAO, in Konnaginaickanahally in Dharmapuri Taluk at the relevant point of time.
5.Since the issues involved in these criminal original petitions and the Revision are one and the same, they are disposed of by way of this common order.
6.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows_ 6-1.In the year 1982, the Government of Tamil Nadu sanctioned a scheme known as Sri Lankan Repatriates Housing Loan for Sri Lankan refugees. The modus operandi of the said scheme is to provide housing loan and business loan to the Sri Lankan Tamillian, who are eligible, under the said Scheme. As per the said Scheme, the Revenue Divisional Officers of the concerned Divisions would receive the applications from the repatriates and forward the same to the concerned Tahsildars for an enquiry and verification. On such verification, a report would be prepared and submitted to the Revenue Divisional Officers for appropriate orders. The aforesaid scheme was in force from the year 1982 to 1992. As per the said scheme, the application from the eligible Sri Lankan repatriates shall be received and forwarded to the concerned Village Administrative Officers, Revenue Inspectors for scrutiny and report and only on receipt of the same, the concerned Tahsildars would physically verify the genuineness of the application and accord sanction depending upon the eligibility to the candidates. But, in implementing the said scheme, some irregularities are said to have been committed by the officials with connivance of some private individuals. Hence, the Government of Tamil Nadu conducted an investigation into certain allegations against the employees in the year 1992 to ascertain the alleged irregularities said to have been committed in sanctioning of housing loan/business loan. On such investigation, it appears that certain employees at Erode, Dharmapurai and Cuddalore District failed to scrutinize the documents properly relating to the sanctioning of housing loan/business loan to Sri Lankan repatriates and rendered wilful assistance to the beneficiary of the housing loan/business loan. Consequent upon the same, the Government thought it fit to proceed against the employees who committed lapse in the revenue unit on their involvement in sanctioning of the loan to Sri Lankan repatriates.
6-2.Hence, the complaints were registered against the employees in FIR.No.8/AC/2000 dated 14.11.2005 and after completion of investigation, the chargesheets were filed under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. and the same were taken on file as C.C.No.18 of 2008 and C.C.No.21 of 2008 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri, which are related to the present Crl.O.P.Nos.2898, 23761 & 25054 of 2014 and Nos.21917 to 21919 of 2015 and Crl.R.C.No.698 of 2009 6-3.So far as Crl.O.P.No.32319 of 2014 is concerned, the Complaint was registered in FIR.No.8/ACX/98/CL dated 15.10.1998 against the petitioner and others and after completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in Charge Sheet No.4 of 2003 and the same was taken on file as Spl.C.C.No.3 of 2003 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore.
6-4.All the above cases were filed against the petitioners herein and others for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 167, 409, 468 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Now, the petitioners have come before this Court seeking to quash the criminal complaint / for discharge from the case.
7.The learned counsel for the petitioners in the Criminal Original Petitions submitted that the petitioners in these Criminal Original Petitions were working at various cadres in the Revenue Departments. During the year 1982, the Government of Tamil Nadu sanctioned a scheme known as Sri Lankan Repatriates Housing Loan for Sri Lankan refugees. The said Scheme was in vogue from 1982 to 1992. The petitioners herein served as officials at various cadres during 1993 - 1995 ie., only after the year 1992 and they were not involved in the Scheme which was in vogue from 1982-1992. While so, the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration vide his Letter No.Ser.II(1)2700/99, dated 20.09.1999 informed the Secretary to Government, Public [Special.A], Department that three officials viz., P.Thangaraj, R.Jayaraman and A.Murugesan, have committed irregularities in sanctioning of the loan without proper recommendation. The allegation against the said three officials was that they failed to scrutinize the loan files properly which caused loss to the State Exchequer. Based upon the said report, the Public Department in its letter dated 30.03.2000 vide Lr.No.4781/RH III/99-9 directed the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department to conduct a detailed enquiry against the said officials on their role in misappropriation of funds. The Public Department sanctioned permission to register the regular criminal case against the said officials. Based on the said communication from the Public Department dated 30.03.2000, the respondent Police filed FIR vide Cr.No.8/ACX/98/CC dated 15.10.1998 and Cr.No.8/AC/2000/dated 14.11.2000 against the 18 accused including two private individuals, which culminated into filing of the chargesheets before the Chief Judicial Magistrates of Dharmapuri and Cuddalore as stated supra.
8.It is the main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Government had initiated similar action against the two senior officials viz., T.Abraham and T.Soundaiah who served as RDO, DRO and Sub-Collector, in various places, who were responsible for the alleged loss sustained by the Government. Though proceedings were initiated for committing serious loss in sanctioning of loan, no criminal action was taken against them and ultimately, the Government dropped the contemplated proceedings against them and subsequently, they were accorded IAS cadre also; whereas action has been taken against the petitioners herein, which is a clear discrimination by the Government in imposing liability on the officials. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the proceedings of the Government dated 20.10.2004 in order to show that the proceedings against the said two officials were dropped. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2008)8 MLJ 518 (SC) [Man Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Others], and submitted that there cannot be any discrimination by the Government in imposing the liability.
9.The learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl.R.C.Nos.1214, 1309 and 1310 of 2011, dated 24.07.2013 [A.Shanmugam and others Vs. State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Erode], and submitted that in an identical situation, the learned Single Judge has entertained the Revisions filed by the accused persons as against the dismissal of the discharge petitions by the Trial Court; that while allowing the said Revisions, the learned Single Judge has observed in the order that already most of the main accused/public servants were discharged by the Trial Court and dismissal of the discharge petitions of the remaining accused has created inequality among the accused causing prejudice to the accused; thus, the learned Single Judge discharged the remaining accused by allowing the revisions. By relying upon the said judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the instant case also, since the proceedings in respect of the main accused persons viz., T.Abraham and T.Soundaiah who had served as RDO, DRO and Sub-Collector, at various places, were dropped, applying the ratio laid down by the learned Single Judge in the above said case, the present Criminal Original Petitions have to be allowed.
10.That apart, the learned counsel for the petitioners has invited the attention of this Court to the Criminal Revision Case filed by one of the accused viz., 6th accused P.Thangaraju in C.C.No.18 of 2008, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court and the said judgment was reported in 2010-1 LW (Crl.) 707 (P.Thangaraju Vs. State). In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners has made a detailed argument, by inviting the attention of this Court to the discussions made in the said judgment and submitted that the learned Single Judge, by perusing the entire file has come to the conclusion that the guidelines were issued by the Government in respect of the procedures to be followed for the identification of the beneficiaries of the Scheme only on 04.10.1995 and it is only after those guidelines, the verification of genuineness of the applications on the basis of the identity Certificate, passport, etc., came to be in vogue. The alleged offence was said to have taken place much earlier to the year 1995 ie., in between 1982 - 1992. Thus, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the absence of any guidelines at the relevant point of time, no case could be made out against the petitioners herein to show that they have committed the offence by failing to scrutinise the applications properly for sanctioning the loan.
11.As next fold of submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the alleged offence is said to have taken place during the period from 1982 to 1992 and the guidelines were issued by the Government in respect of the procedures to be followed for the identification of the beneficiaries of the Scheme only on 04.10.1995. First Information Reports were registered only on 15.10.1998/14.11.2000 and the charge sheet was lodged only in the year 2005. But, till date, in respect of C.C.No.18 of 2008, the trial has not commenced, except prosecution examining three witnesses in the year 2008. Similarly, in C.C.No.21/2008, no witnesses were examined till date. Hence, the right of speedy remedy to the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is thoroughly deprived. It is almost 24 years have lapsed since the date of alleged lapse and 16 years since the date of lodging the FIR and 11 years subsequent to the filing of the chargesheet, but no progress has been shown by the respondent. In fact, out of the 19 accused, 5 accused died, 2 accused were discharged by this Court and the main accused were let off by the Government by issuing Government Order dropping the proceedings against them. Hence, it is a clear case of discrimination on the part of the respondent to proceed against the petitioners, after they attained the age of 70 years. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2001) 4 SCC 525 [Seeta Hemchandra Shashittal Vs. State of Maharashtra] and (1998) 7 SCC 507 [Raj Deo Sharma Vs. State of Bihar], wherein, on the ground of delay, the complaints were quashed holding that the long delay can be taken as presumptive proof for prejudice. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioners sought for quashing the criminally proceedings.
12.With regard to the Revision, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submit that there is no material to frame charge against the revision petitioner; but the discharge petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Trial Court without verifying the records. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited the attention of this Court to the statement of the PA to the Collector, Dharmapuri viz., Varadharajulu and submitted that there is no specific overtact attributed against the petitioner herein and except the fact that he is said to have issued certificate to the persons who had applied for housing loan to show as if they are residing in the address as mentioned. But, absolutely there is no part for him to play in the offence. Even assuming without admitting the allegations as mentioned in the chargesheet, the ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out as against the petitioner herein. But, without appreciating the evidence in a proper manner, the Trial Court has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner for discharge. Thus, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner sought for setting aside the impugned order and consequentially, for discharging the petitioner from the case.
13.But, opposing the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, by filing detailed counters, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners are responsible to verify the genuineness of the applications; but, the petitioners by hatching criminal conspiracy failed to verify the genuineness of the applications in respect of applicants and they are responsible for the sanction of the loan amount to the applicants, who are not eligible to get the loan. Thus, the petitioners committed the offences as alleged in the chargesheet.
14.Further, with regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out as against the petitioner herein, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations made in the chargesheet would make out a clear case against the petitioners for the alleged offences under Sections 120(B), 167, 409, 468 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. When that being so, the complaints cannot be quashed and the petitioner cannot be discharged.
15.With regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were not working at the relevant point of time in connection with the Scheme viz., Sri Lankan Repatriates Housing Loan Scheme, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are enough materials to show that the petitioners were involved in the process of sanctioning the loan amount under the said Scheme. The said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is purely a matter of evidence.
16.With regard to the discharge of an accused P.Thangaraju by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case reported in 2010-1 LW (Crl.) 707 (P.Thangaraju Vs. State), it is the reply of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the petitioner therein is only a PA to the RDO, Dharmapuri, and his job was not directly connected with the process of sanction of the loan and his duty was only to submit the files received by him to the RDO; that is why, the learned Single Judge of this Court has quashed the proceedings as against him. But, in the same judgment, the learned Single Judge has directed the Trial Court to proceed with the other accused.
17.Further, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the mere delay alone is not sufficient to quash the criminal proceedings. In fact, there is no deliberate inaction on the part of the prosecution for the delay. The delay has been caused only because of the fault of the accused and all the accused shown in the final report have been filing petitions under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. one after another from the date of taking the case on file. Thus, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor sought for dismissal of the criminal original petitions and the revision.
18.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
19.The sum and substance of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners are as follows_
(i)The petitioners herein were working in different cadre in the Revenue Department during the period from 1993 to 1995 and they were not involved in the scheme namely Sri Lankan Repatriates Housing Loan for Sri Lankan Refugees, which was in vogue from 1982 to 1992. Therefore, there is no material against the petitioners either to proceed with the case or to frame charges against them;
(ii)the guidelines/procedures to be followed in identification of the beneficiaries under the said Scheme was issued only on 04.10.1995 by the Directorate of Rehabilitation. The prosecution is not in a position to explain as to how the said procedures contemplated in the guidelines dated 04.10.1995 can be made applicable to the facts of the case, since admittedly the said Scheme was not in vogue after the year 1992.
(iii)Though the Government had initiated similar action against two senior officials viz., T.Abraham and T.Soundaiah, who served as RDO, DRO and Sub-Collector, in various places, who were responsible for the alleged loss sustained by the Government; but, no criminal action was taken against them and ultimately, the Government dropped the contemplated proceedings against them and subsequently, they were accorded IAS cadre also; therefore, there is clear discrimination by the Government in imposing liability on the petitioners herein.
(iv)Similarly placed accused viz., P.Thangaraju (6th accused in C.C.No.18 of 2008), has been discharged by this Court vide the order of this Court reported in 2010-1 L.W. (Crl.) 707 [P.Thangaraju Vs. State]. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, since the said judgment will be equally applicable to the present petitioners also, based on the said judgment, the petitioners herein can also be discharged from the case.
(v) Almost 24 years have lapsed since the date of alleged lapse and 16 years since the date of lodging the FIR and 11 year subsequent to the filing of the chargesheet, but no progress has been shown by the respondent in the case and the trial has not commenced. The petitioners have attained the age of 70 years. Hence, the right of speedy remedy to the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is thoroughly deprived. Hence, on the ground of delay also, the petitioners are entitled to be discharged from the case and the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed.
20.It is the first ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were working in different cadre in the Revenue Department during the period from 1993 to 1995 and they were not involved in the scheme namely Sri Lankan Repatriates Housing Loan for Sri Lankan Refugees, which was in vogue from 1982 to 1992. Therefore, there cannot be any material against the petitioners herein to proceed with the case by framing a charge against them. But, on a perusal of the chargesheet, it could be seen that there was an allegation of criminal conspiracy between the petitioners herein/public servants, during the relevant point of time, to commit forgery of records in respect of the said Scheme and to use such forged records as genuine in order to create records as if loans had been granted and disbursed to the persons, actually who are non-existent and never applied for such loans; thereby the petitioners obtained undue pecuniary advantage for themselves; thus, it is alleged by the prosecution, that they have committed the offence under Section 120B IPC r/w Section 167, 409, 419, 420, 468 r/w 471 r/w 109 IPC and Section 13(1)(c) & (d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
21.Therefore, there is a specific allegation against the petitioners that they have conspired and committed the alleged offences at the relevant point of time. Hence, the question as to whether the scheme was in vogue when they were serving in different cadre at the relevant point of time or not, is purely a matter of evidence and the same cannot serve as a ground for quashing the complaint. Therefore, this submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted.
22.It is the next fold of submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the guidelines in respect of the procedures to be followed for the identification of the beneficiaries of the Scheme were issued by the Director Rehabilitation only on 04.10.1995 and prior to that, there were no guidelines. Only after the issuance of the said guidelines, the verification of genuineness of the applications on the basis of the identity Certificate, passport, etc., came to be in vogue. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners has also invited the attention of this Court to the decision of this Court reported 2010-1 L.W. (Crl.) 707 [P.Thangaraju Vs. State]. But, in my considered opinion, the question as to whether there were guidelines in respect of the procedures to be followed for the identification of the beneficiaries of the Scheme or not, is immaterial, because of the reason that now, it is the specific case of the prosecution that the petitioners herein have criminally conspired between themselves, during the relevant point of time, to commit forgery of records in respect of the said Scheme and to use such forged records as genuine in order to create records as if loans have been granted and disbursed to the persons, actually who are non-existent and never applied for such loans; thereby the petitioners obtained undue pecuniary advantage for themselves and they have committed the offence. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the petitioners cannot take advantage of the non-existence of the guidelines at the relevant point of time. The question as to whether at the relevant point of time there was conspiracy among the petitioners/accused has to be decided only during the trial. The non-existence of guidelines at the relevant point of time has nothing to do with the alleged offence of criminal conspiracy. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard.
23.It is another contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is discrimination by the Government in imposing liability on the petitioners. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though originally the Government had initiated similar action against two senior officials viz., T.Abraham and T.Soundaiah, who served as RDO, DRO and Sub-Collector, in various places, who were responsible for the alleged loss sustained by the Government; but, no criminal action was taken against them and ultimately, the Government dropped the contemplated proceedings against them and subsequently, they were accorded IAS cadre. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is clear discrimination by the Government in imposing liability on the petitioners herein.
24.But, in my considered opinion, the proceedings were dropped against the above said two officials by the Government even before filing the chargesheet. The Statement Government is entitled to drop the action against the accused if the Government found that no case has been made out against the accused. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is discrimination by the Government in imposing the liability on the petitioners, cannot be accepted. Further, the judgment reported in (2008)8 MLJ 518 (SC) [Man Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Others] which was relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard, was not delivered in a criminal case and it was delivered in connection with the departmental proceedings. Hence, the said judgment cannot be made applicable to the present facts of the case.
25.It is yet another submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that similarly placed accused person viz., P.Thangaraju (6th accused in C.C.No.18 of 2008), has been discharged by this Court vide the order of this Court reported in 2010-1 L.W. (Crl.) 707 [P.Thangaraju Vs. State]. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, since the said judgment will be equally applicable to the present petitioners also, based on the said judgment, the petitioners herein can also be discharged from the case. But, on a perusal of the said judgment, I find that the accused P.Thangaraju was only a PA to the RDO and in that case, the learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that he was not actually involved in the process of sanctioning the loan. In the same judgment, the learned Single Judge in the conclusion paragraph, has directed as follows_ "In the result, the criminal revision petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 10.12.2008 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri in C.M.P.No.42 of 2008 in C.C.No.18 of 2008 is set aside; and the petition is discharged from the said case. The Trial Court may proceed with the trial of the case in respect of the other accused in accordance with law. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010 are closed."
Therefore, the said judgment cannot be made applicable to the petitioners herein, since there is a specific allegation that the petitioners herein are involved in the process of sanctioning the loan under the Scheme.
26.In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the unreported decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl.R.C.Nos.1214, 1309 & 1310 of 2011, dated 24.07.2013 [A.Shamugam and another Vs. State], and the relevant passage in the said decision reads as follows_ "5.It appears that the occurrence relates to the period from 1989 to 1992. The First Information Report was filed in the year 2001 and the final report was filed in the year 2007. At the time of filing the final report, all the Public Servants were retired from service. On perusing the order passed by the trial Court, it appears that the trial Court discharged mostly the main accused who were all public servants i.e., Revenue Divisional Officers, Deputy Tahsildars and further the accused who prepared the inspection report, made field visits and submitted proposals for sanctioning the housing loan have also been discharged. The initial enquiry would be made not below the rank of Deputy Tahsildar and verification of the utilisation must be done by the RDOs, Special Deputy Collector and P.A. to Collector. All those public servants were discharged by the trial Court. On going through the reasons given by the trial Court for discharging them, it is not so convicting to this Court, but the State has not preferred any revision against the order passed by the trial Court discharging some of the accused. The order passed by the trial Court has created inequality among the accused causing prejudice to the accused.
6.This Court is of the view that having discharged the main accused, proceeding with the case only against the remaining public servants is not proper. More than 20 years had elapsed from the date of occurrence and 12 years had elapsed from the date of registering the First Information Report. This Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the cases pending. In the said circumstances, the proceedings against the petitioners - accused 3, 11, 13, 15 and 17 in Special Case No.72 of 2007 and also against the other remaining accused who are not before this Court are quashed. The proceedings against the petitioners - accused 4 and 5 in Special Case No.73 of 2007 and also proceedings against other remaining accused who are not before this Court are quashed."
A reading of the above said judgment would show that in that case, the main accused were already discharged by the Trial Court and that is why, the learned Single Judge of this Court had come to the conclusion that when the main accused who were public servants were already discharged by the Court, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the cases pending and thus, the learned Single Judge passed the order discharging the other remaining accused persons. But, that is not the state of affairs in the case on hand. Therefore, the said judgment cannot be made applicable to the present facts of the case.
27.It is the another submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that almost 25 years have lapsed since the date of alleged offence and 16 years have lapsed since the date of lodging the FIR and 11 years have lapsed from the date of filing of the chargesheet; but no progress has been shown by the respondent in the present case; hence, the right of speedy remedy to the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is thoroughly deprived. In support of their contention with regard to the delay, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decisions reported in (2001) 4 SCC 525 [Seeta Hemchandra Shashittal Vs. State of Maharashtra] and (1998) 7 SCC 507 [Raj Deo Sharma Vs. State of Bihar].
28.But, in my considered opinion, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed on the ground of delay alone as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions that the delay aspect should be weighed by taking into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances of each case. At this juncture, it is worthwhile to note that in the decision reported in 2008 (16) SCC 117 (Pankaj Kumar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others) the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the Court has to perform the balancing act upon taking into consideration the attendant circumstances for the delay. Therefore, in my considered view, quashing the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners herein on the ground of inordinate/huge delay is not a straight-jacket formula and whether a particular criminal proceedings can be quashed solely on that ground or not, is a matter to be considered only by taking into consideration all the relevant factors, as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of P.Ramachandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka [2002 (4) SCC 578 = CDJ 2002 SC 319], wherein it has been held that right to speedy trial deprived could be identified by factors like length of delay, the justification for the delay, assertion of the right by the accused for speedy trial and prejudice caused to the accused by such delay.
29.In 2013 (4) SCC 642 (Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal Vs. State of Maharashtra) and 2015 (9) SCC 201 (Sirajul Vs.State of U.P), it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that only in order to prevent abuse of process of Court and in the interest of justice, quashing of the proceedings is permissible, that too by taking into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and attendant circumstances, by exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was further held by the Apex Court that the factors like social justice, rule of law and purpose of enactment concerned to secure and spread deterrent message, have to be weighed with and balanced and hence, no outer limit for trial could be fixed and if the corruption cases are allowed to be quashed merely on the ground of delay, it may garner and pave the way for anarchism.
30.Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 1991 SCC (Cri) 7 = 1990 (2) SCC 340 = AIR 1990 SC 1266 = CDJ 1990 SC 008 (State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. P.V.Pavithran), held that no general proposition can be laid to show that the reason for the delay would 'ipso-facto' provide a ground for quashing the FIR (therein) and further that, it is not possible to stipulate a period of limitation to complete the investigation, as the nature of some of the offences involved would take considerable time for unearthing the crime.
31.The dictum laid down in the above cited decisions would be applicable to the present facts of the case also. Hence, the ground of delay raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is also not available to the petitioners. All the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners at the best can be their defence before the Trial Court, but they can not be a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings or for discharging the petitioners from the case. Hence, I do not find any merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The Criminal Original Petitions as well as the Revision are liable to be dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, all the above Criminal Original Petitions and the Revision are dismissed. The Trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
30.08.2016 Today, at the time of pronouncing the order, the learned counsel for the petitioners made a request to give a direction to the Trial Court to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioners, stating that most of the petitioners have crossed the age of 70 years and they are suffering from ailments.
In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court passes the following order_ The petitioner shall file an affidavit before the Trial Court to the effect that they will co-operate for the completion of the trial. Such affidavit being filed, the Trial Court is directed to pass appropriate order dispensing with their appearance.
30.08.2016 Index : Yes Internet : Yes To,
1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri.
2.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore.
3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.
4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Cuddalore.
R.SUBBIAH, J.
ssv Pre-delivery common order in Crl.R.C.No.698 of 2009 and Crl.O.P.Nos.2898, 23761, 25054 & 32319 of 2014 and Crl.O.P.No.21917, 21918 & 21919 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 in Crl.R.C.No.698 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 in Crl.O.P.No.2898 of 2014 30.08.2016