Madras High Court
K.Inbaraj vs State Represented By The on 31 August, 2010
Author: C.S.Karnan
Bench: C.S.Karnan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 31/08/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN Crl.R.C.(MD).No.580 of 2010 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2010 K.Inbaraj .. Petitioner Vs State represented by the 1.Additional Superintendent of Police (Crime), Thanjavur, Cr.No.261/2004 of Kumbakonam East Police Station. .. Respondent/Complainant 2.S.Paramasivam .. Respondent / Accused No.11 Prayer Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.806/2010 in S.C.No.275 of 2006 dated 30.07.2010 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur and allow this revision. !For Petitioner ... Mr.M.Subash Babu ^For R-1 ... Mr.P.Rajendran Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) For R-2 ... Mr.G.R.Swaminathan :ORDER
The above Criminal Revision petition filed by the petitioner/ prosecution witness No.27 against the order of the withdrawal of the case against the 2nd respondent/A-11, passed by the principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur in Cr.M.P.No.806 of 2010 in S.C.No.275 of 2006 dated 30.07.2010, being aggrieved by the order, this petitioner preferred this Criminal revision to set aside the order.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follow:
2.1. One Bharathi, Village Administrative Officer had lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police, Kumbakonam East Police Station on 16.07.2004 stating that on 16.07.2004 at about 11.00 a.m. Srikrishna aided primary school and Parvathi Girls High School Caught fire on the 1st floor of these institutions. In the said fire accident about 100 children perished. The said complaint registered by the Inspector of Police in Crime No.261 of 2004, an alleged offence under Section 304(A) of I.P.C. The said case was investigated and charge sheet filed against 24 accused persons. As per charge sheet the 2nd respondent's rank is accused No.11 Subsequently the Government appointed a judicial commission headed by His Lordship Mr.Justice, K.Sampath His Lordship was pleased to conduct an enquiry and submitted his report.
3. The Charge Sheet was filed after the investigation before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur. At this stage the 2nd respondent has filed Cr.M.P.No.806 of 2010 in S.C.No.275 of 2006 to discharge from the framing charges. The learned Judge has passed the order as follows:
(a) The averments in the petition filed by the petitioner / complainant are as follows:-
The respondent is 11th accused in this case. The respondent has been charged along with other accused under Section 120(B) r/w 304, 338, 285,167, 197, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of I.P.C and Rule 15(1)(2) r/w 16 of Tamil Nadu Public Buildings (Licensing) Act, 1965 and Section 5 r/w 47 of Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act and Section 23 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 and Municipalities Act r/w 108(1), 109 of I.P.C. in respect of an occurrence that had happened on 16.07.2004 at 11.00 a.m. in Kasiraman Street in the Sri Krishna Aided Primary School, Saraswathi Nursery and Primary School and Sri Krishna Girls High School.
(b) The respondent has filed a petition under Section 227 of Cr.P.C to discharge him from the above case. Now, the Government of Tamil Nadu Revenue (SER 4/2) Department in G.O.No.(2D) 654 dated 29.12.2009 passed an order to withdraw the prosecution case against the above said accused / respondent.
(c) In furtherance of the Government Orders, the District Collector, Thanjavur has sent a proceeding in R.C.No.2486/2007/A4 dated 25.02.2010 directing the prosecution to withdraw the case against the said accused in the interest of administration of criminal justice. Hence, the application for the withdrawal of prosecution is filed before this court. The proceedings of the District Collector, Thanjavur and the Government referred to above are filed herewith.
(d) The accused should be discharged in respect of such offences. The offences that are levelled against the respondent 2 herein is to be withdrawn and consent to withdraw the case against the respondent 2 may kindly be accorded and the respondent 2 herein/accused 11, may be discharged from the offences.
(e) Point for consideration in this petition is that Whether consent has to be given for withdrawal of this case against the respondents 1 and 2 herein?
(f) Point : The respondents herein is arrayed as accused No.11 in S.C.No.275 of 2006. The respondent A-11 S.Paramasivam was the Tahsildar working in Kumbakonam during the year 2002 - 2003.
(g) The fire spread from Noon Meal Kitchen to the Sri Krishna Aided Primary School at Kumbakonam on 16.07.2004, which has resulted in the death of 94 young innocent school children besides causing grievous burn injuries to 18 other school children.
(h) A criminal case in Cr.No.261 of 2004 was registered by Kumbakonam East Police Station and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against 24 accused including the 2nd respondent herein.
(i) The Government has passed G.O.(2D) No.654 Revenue [Ser 4(2)] Department dated 29.12.2009 for withdrawal of this case against the respondent herein. The copy of the said Government Order is enclosed along with the petition.
(j) In the above said Government Orders, the Collector of Thanjavur District was requested to address the Public Prosecutor incharge of this case to withdraw the prosecution against the respondent herein who are arrayed as A-11 in this case.
(k) The Collector of Thanjavur had requested the Additional Government Pleader cum Additional Public Prosecutor, Thanjavur to take proper action to withdraw the prosecution against the respondents 1 and 2 herein. Accordingly, the Additional Public Prosecutor has filed this petition under Section 321 of Cr.P.C.
(l) The Government in the order has stated that in the interest of administration of criminal justice, the case against the respondent herein has to be withdrawn. The reasons stated in the Government Order and in the petition are convincing. Hence, consent is to be given for withdrawal of this case against the 2nd respondent herein and accordingly this petition is allowed. As per Section 321(a) of Cr.P.C. if the order of withdrawal is passed before framing of charge, the accused has to be discharged. In this case, charge has not been framed so far. Hence, the respondent 2 herein is discharged from this case and the point is answered accordingly.
(m) In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed as prayed for. The respondent 2 herein is discharged from this case in S.C.No.275 of 2006 under Section 321(a) of Cr.P.C.
4. Aggrieved by this order the revision petitioner/persecution witness No.27 has filed the above Criminal Revision Petition. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners vehemently argued that the respondent 2 is the main accused in the said criminal case. The said case is ready for trial, at this juncture the respondent was discharged from the proceedings which is not sustainable under law. The learned counsel further pointed out that the respondent 2 was working as Tahsildar, Kumbakonam during the relevant period, he happens renew the building license of Sri Krishna Girls High School and Saraswathi Nursery and Primary School, Kumbakonam. This school building was covered by a roof, as per school buildings rules and regulations the institute was unfit for running in the normal manner. Knowing this fact the 2nd respondent is the competent authorities who has not discharged his responsibilities in order to ensure the safe running of the school. It is a clear case of negligence and omission of proper service resulting in this accident occurring. If the respondent is allowed to be discharged from the Criminal proceedings a lacuna will arise in the adjudication; innocent children had perished in a public educational institution so in the interest and confidence of the public, the 2nd respondent should be held responsible. Hence, the learned counsel prays to dismiss the discharge petition of the 2nd respondent and allow this Criminal Revision Petition.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon a judgment in Abdul Karim vs. State of Karnataka reported in CDJ 2000 SC 512 the operative portion is as follow:-
"The self-preservation is the most pervasive aspect of sovereignty. To preserve its independence and territories is the highest duty of every nation and to attain these needs nearly all other considerations are to be subordinated. Of course, it is for the State to consider these aspects and take a conscious decision. In the present case, without consideration of these aspects the decision was taken to withdraw the TADA charges. It evident from material now placed on record before this Court that Veerappan was acting in consultation with secessionist organisations/groups which had the object of liberation of Tamil from India. There is no serious challenge to this aspect. None of the aforesaid aspects were considered by the Government or the Public Prosecutors before having recourse to Section 321 Cr.P.C.
43. With these additional reasons, I am in complete respectful agreement with the conclusion and opinion of my senior colleague Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.P.Bharucha.
Appeals allowed."
6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon a Judgment in Hon'ble Supreme court of India in Avinash Mehrotra vs. Union of India and others reported in W.P(Civil)No.483 of 2004, the operative portion is as follows:-
(i) Before granting recognition or affiliation, the concerned State Governments and Union Territories are directed to ensure that the buildings are safe and secured from every angle and they are constructed according to the safely norms incorporated in the National Building Code of India.
(ii) All existing government and private schools shall install fire extinguishing equipments within a period of six months.
(iii) The school buildings be kept free from inflammable and toxic material. If storage is inevitable, they should be stored safely.
(iv) Evaluation of structural aspect of the school may be carried out periodically. We direct that the concerned engineers and official must strictly follow the National Building Code. The safety certificate be issued only after proper inspection. Dereliction in duty must attract immediate disciplinary action against the concerned officials.
(v) Necessary training be imparted to the staff and other officials of the school to use the fire extinguishing equipments."
7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon a judgment in Hon'bel Supreme Court of India in Rajender Kumar Jain vs. State Throught Special Police Establishment and Others (Criminal Appeal No.287 of 1979) and Mahohar Lal vs. Bansi Lal and Others (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.3135 of 1979) and Attorney-General of India vs. State of Haryanan and others (Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.3890 of 1979) reported in CDJ 1980 SC 351, the operative portion is as follows:-
"Thus, from the precedents of this Court, we gather:
1.Under the scheme of the Code prosecution of an offender for a serious offence is primarily the responsibility of the executive.
2.The withdrawal from the prosecution is an executive function of the Public Prosecutor.
3.The discretion to withdraw from the prosecution is that of the Public Prosecutor and none else, and so, he cannot surrender that discretion to someone else.
4.The government may suggest to the Public Prosecutor that he may withdraw from the prosecution but none can compel him to do so.
5.The Public Prosecutor may withdraw from the prosecution not merely on the ground of paucity of evidence but on other relevant grounds as well in order to further the broad ends of public justice, public order and peace. The broad ends of public justice will certainly include appropriate social, economic and, we add, political purposes sans Tammary Hall enterprises.
6.The Public Prosecutor is an officer of the Court and responsible to the Court.
7.The Court performs a supervisory function in granting its consent to the withdrawal.
8.The court's duty is not to reappreciate the grounds which led the Public Prosecutor to request withdrawal from the prosecution but to consider whether the Public Prosecutor applied his mind as a free agent, uninfluenced by irrelevant and extraneous considerations. The court has a special duty in this regard as it is the ultimate repository of legislative confidence in granting or withholding its consent to withdrawal from the prosecution."
8. The learned Public Prosecutor has filed counter statement and narrated the facts as follow:-
(a) The 2nd respondent was charged for offences under Section 120(B) r/w 304, 338, 285, 167, 197, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of I.P.C and Rule 15(1) (2) r/w.
16 of Tamil Nadu Public Building (Licensing) Act, 1965 and Section 5 r/w. 47 of Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act and Section 23 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 and Municipalities Act r/w 108(1), 109 of I.P.C. The respondent No.2 has filed an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C to discharge him from the above case before the learned Principal District and Session Judge, Thanjavur. During the pendency of the above application for discharge, the Government of Tamil Nadu Revenue (SER 4/2) Department in G.O.No.(2D) 654 dated 29.12.2009 to withdraw the Prosecution side. Directed the prosecution to withdraw the case against the Accused in the interest of Administration of Criminal Justice. Accordingly, application was filed by the learned Public Prosecutor, who was in charge of the case at that time had filed an application under Section 321 of Cr.P.C before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur. The above said application under Section 321 Cr.P.C was taken on file in Cr.M.P.No.806 of 2010 in S.C.No.275 of 2006 before the learned Principal District Sessions Judge, Thanjavur.
(b) On 30.07.2010 the learned District Judge had passed order by allowing the application and discharged the Accused from the above case. The learned District and Sessions Judge has convinced and accordingly allowed the application filed by the respondent No.2 in Cr.M.P.No.806 of 2010 in S.C.No.275 of 2006.
(c) The contention of the petitioner about the death of 94 Children and 18 Students sustained bad injuries in the occurrence is not relevant for the application for withdrawal.
(d) The contention of the petitioner that the District Collector has directed the Public Prosecutor to withdraw the case against the Accused is not correct, only the Government has passed the relevant G.O. in this case. The District Collector has not directed the Public Prosecutor to withdraw but he has forwarded the G.O. only passed by the Government for the withdrawal of the cases.
(e) The learned District Judge has correctly appreciated the contention of the party and has come to a correct conclusion in this case.
(f) The learned District Judge has followed the principles laid down in the decisions of our High Court as well as the Apex Court in this case and has passed the orders accordingly.
(g) I most humbly submit that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to consider my submissions stated supra and pass orders accordingly and thus render justice.
9. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that the learned judge passed an order after well considering the prosecuting case. If the respondent accused No.2 has been discharged from the criminal proceedings, the character of the prosecution case will not be affected. Further, the lacuna will not arise in the adjudication. Further the respondent will cooperate with the prosecution to establish the prosecution case before the trial Court.
10. The second respondent has filed a counter statement which are as follows:-
(a) The 2nd respondent herein was working as Tahsildar, Kumbakonam Taluk during the period from 12.06.2002 to 31.08.2003. During this period, he happens to renew the building license of Sri.Krishna Girls Higher School and Saraswathi Nursery and Primary School, Kumbakonam on 07.10.2002 and 01.08.2003 respectively. While so a very tragic fire accident took place in Sri.Krishna Aided Primary School on 16.07.2004 leading to death of as many as 94 children.
Unfortunately this respondent was arrested and he was remanded to judicial custody.
(b) This respondent applied for bail from this Hon'ble Court by filing Crl.O.P(MD) No.1653 of 2004. This Hon'ble Court was pleased to grant bail to the petitioner by order dated 24.09.2004. While granting bail, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to observe as follows:
"On the basis of the application given by the School Management, attaching necessary certificates, the petitioner in Criminal O.P.No.1653 of 2004 had issued renewal of license, for Sri.Krishna Girls High School for the period 10.09.2002 to 09.09.2005. it appears, it is not the case of the prosecution as on this date, that despite the fact there was a thatched shed in the terrace of the building, where the classes were running, this person had recommended for issuance of license. In this building, it appears, this incident had not taken place. Therefore, unless it is brought to surface by clinching evidence, that this Tahsildar had knowledge about the thatched shed, where the school was running and granted license or renewal of the license for that building, it seems, his role may not be the cause for the incident.
(c) This respondent respectfully states that even though such a categorical finding was given by this Hon'ble Court, the departmental authorities chose to keep the petitioner under suspension. Therefore, this respondent had to move the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court by finalising W.A.No.231 of 2005. The Hon'ble Division Bench comprising of their Lordship Mr.Justice. K.P.Sivasubramanian, Hon'ble Mr.Justice. S.K.Krishnan took note of the contentions raised by this respondent that this respondent did not issue certificate in respect of the building which was the subject matter of the fire accident. The Hon'ble Division Bench felt that this contention raised by this respondent should be decided by the enquiry authority on evidence. In the meanwhile, the Hon'ble Justice Sampath Commission was constituted and the Sampath Commission felt that the role played by this respondent should be probed. Because of the said finding of the Hon'ble Justice Sampath Commission, departmental action was initiated against this respondent. Further a charge memo that was issued on this respondent proceeds on the very same set of facts on which the criminal prosecution against this respondent was originally founded. In other words, the allegations in the departmental action and the allegations of the criminal case against this respondent were one and the same.
A detailed enquiry was conducted. The Enquiring Officer after a thorough examination of the materials on record, submitted a report to the disciplinary authority holding that the charges against this respondent are not proved. The Enquiry authority after a thorough study of the materials on record held that the charges made against this respondent were not proved. The Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Revenue Department also affirmed the aforesaid finding of the Enquiry authority and completely exonerated this respondent from all charges by order dated 20.04.2009 in Rc.No.Ser.3(3)/52107/2008.
(d)This Hon'ble Court also in W.P.Nos.1218 of 2007 and W.P.No.7778/2010 was pleased to direct to regularize all the period of suspension and also directed the inclusion of the name of this respondent in the promotion panel for the post of Deputy Collector.
(e) This respondent states that following the committal before the Sessions Court, he filed a detailed application for discharge. In the said application, this respondent pointed out that there are 3 schools namely Sri.Krishna Girls High School, Saraswathy Nursery & Primary School and Krishna Aided Primary School. This respondent gave license only in favour of Sri Krishna Girls High School and Saraswathy Nursery and Primary School and not to the occurrence school. Therefore no penal liability can be fastened on this respondent. The fact that this respondent did not give license to the occurrence school was the only reason as to why the Hon'ble Madurai Bench gave bail in favour of this respondent in the first instance and for his exoneration from the disciplinary action later. Even according to the prosecution, the tragic fire accident took place only in Sri.Krishna Aided Primary School. When it not the case that this respondent issued license to the occurrence school, by no stretch of imagination can this respondent has been made an accused. This respondent also contended further that the prosecution has not adduced any material justifying framing of criminal charges against this respondent. Only two list witnesses namely LW.448 and 449 referred to the role played by this respondent. Even accepting their statements in Toto no case is made out against this respondent. The Investigating Officer has lodged charge sheet against this respondent without even being aware of the statutory scheme set out in the Tamil Nadu Public Buildings Licensing Act. Even though the discharge application was argued in the month of October 2009, the learned Sessions Judge did not dispose of the discharge application filed by this respondent. One way or other, it was kept pending.
(f) This respondent states that since a number of legal and factual contentions demonstrating the total innocence of this respondent were raised, the Government in all fairness sought to consider withdrawal of prosecution against this respondent. Before doing so it sought the legal opinion of the Public Prosecutor. The Public Prosecutor in his opinion dated 23.10.2009 state as follows:
"1.I have carefully perused the materials available on record. I was directed to offer my legal opinion on the point of withdrawal of prosecution as enumerated under Section 321 of Cr.P.C. in so far as Thiru.S.Paramasivam(A-11) an accused facing trial pending disposal before the Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur in S.C.No.275/2006.
2.As per the charge as against Thiru.S.Paramasivam (A-11) he was working as Tahsildar in Kumbakonam Town during 2002-2003 during which he has issued building license to Saraswathi Nursery and Primary School and Sri.Krishna Girls High School separately on various dates based on the incorrect details furnished by the Chartered Engineer in his plans. He had issued this license without proper receipt or scrutiny to the above schools. As a result of this, this deviation and violation were not noted resulting in the tragic fire accident that took place on 16.07.2004 in Sri.Krishna Aided Primary School Complex.
3.The specific case of the prosecution is that he had issued certificate to Saraswathi Nursery and Primary School and Sri.Krishna Girls High School, but admittedly the fateful occurrence had not taken place in the above said two schools. But the accident took place in Sri.Krishna Aided Primary School. So the charge against him is not relevant to occurrence so we cannot prove the case also.
4.In para No.V in page No.7 reference No.3 cited above and in para 5 in page No.8 and para 6 in page No.10 of the above reference No.3, the entire charge has been dealt with so elaborately and found that there is no justification to hold that the appellant [Thiru.Paramasivam(A11)] alone is responsible for the fire accident and the punishment given to him by the District Collector, Thanjavur in his proceedings No.2486/2008/A4 dated 12.06.2008 was ordered to be set aside by order dated 04.05.2009. It is pertinent to note that the charges in the departmental proceedings as well as in the criminal case pending disposal in S.C.No.275/2006 on the file of Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur is one and the same and there are remote possibilities to get conviction against A11 Thiru.S.Paramasivam is concerned.
5.The charge sheet against Thiru.S.Paramasivam (A-11) is only that he had not personally visited the school and acted upon as per the Engineer's plan. So, there is no criminal intention even charged on the part of A-11 Thiru.S.Paramasivam. Hence, considering all the points discussed above, I am, in good faith, satisfied, on consideration of all relevant material, that his withdrawal from the prosecution is in the public interest and it will not stifle or thwart the process of law or cause injustice. The Hon'ble Government may order for withdrawal of criminal prosecution pending disposal in S.C.No.275/2006.
Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the criminal prosecution pending disposal in S.C.No.275/2006 before the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur can be withdrawn after getting consent from the Court concerned subject to the orders of the Government (V.Namasivayam) Public Prosecutor".
(g) This respondent states that since the Public Prosecutor after full application of mind had opined that the criminal prosecution pending aganst this respondent can be withdrawn after getting consent from the Learned Sessions Judge, Government issued G.O.Ms.No.654 dated 29.12.2009. The said G.O., categorically states that the Government had examined the question of withdrawal of prosecution against this respondent and that it is of the view that prosecution case against this respondent is fit for withdrawal in the interest of administration of justice. It is a basic principle of law that making an innocent man undergo the agony of criminal trial is clearly not in the interest of administration of criminal justice. The Collector of Thanjavur was requested to address the Public Prosecutor to withdraw the prosecution against this respondent. Based on this, a request was made to the concerned Public Prosecutor who in turn took out Cr.M.P.No.806 of 2010 in S.C.No.275 of 2006. The Learned Sessions Judge after considering the entire materials on record allowed the aforesaid application by order dated 30.07.2010. In the said order, the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur had taken note of the fact that the case against this respondent is sought to be withdrawn in the interest of administration of criminal justice. The Sessions Judge felt that the reasons stated in the Government order and the petitioner are convincing. Therefore the consent was given for the withdrawal of the case against this respondent. As a result, this respondent was discharged from the case.
(h) Aggrieved by the consent granted by the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, the above criminal R.C.has been filed. This respondent is advised to state that the contentions set out in the ground are not sustainable in law. The Government has the power under Section 321 Cr.P.C. to seek withdrawal of any criminal prosecution. This power till have to be exercised subject to certain stringent conditions. The overall consideration is only upholding the principles of administration of justice. Obviously prosecuting an utterly innocent man cannot be said to be in the interest of administration of justice. In the present case, the Government did not mechanically direct withdrawal of prosecution. On the other hand it invited the opinion of the Public Prosecutor. The Public Prosecutor had tendered his opinion on 23.10.2009. In fact in was invited twice. Thereafter the file was examined and only on 29.12.2009 G.O.Ms.No.(2D) 654 came to be issued. There was no haste. The Government had only requested the District Collector who in turn had only requested the Learned Public Prosecutor. Since the opinion of the Learned Public Prosecutor is already on the file, there was no need once again to repeat the very same reasoning. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to take not of the entire materials on record. The revision petitioner herein is deliberately focusing only on the terms of the G.O.and the petition filed by the Public Prosecutor. This is not fair. The opinion dated 23.10.2009 referred in G.O.(2D) 654, dated 29.12.2009 and other relevant materials should also be looked into. The Learned Sessions Judge has perused the entire materials on record and felt that the reasons assigned by the Government is convincing. The satisfaction expressed by the Learned Sessions Judge for giving consent for the withdrawal of prosecution need not be interfered with. It may be incidental by pointing out note what is now stated is fully in tune with the finding given by this Hon'ble Court while granting bail in favour of this respondent. This respondent got bail from this Honourable Court after being found that he did not issue license for the occurrence building. The disciplinary action initiated against this respondent on the basis of the finding given by Mr.Justice K.Sampath Commission ultimately ended in his exoneration. Even during the proceedings of the Mr.Justice K.Sampath Commission, the concerned District Superintendent of Police categorically admitted that this respondent did not issue license to the occurrence building. More than anything else, during 2004 when the occurrence took place, this respondent was not even working in Kumbakonam, but had been transferred to Thanjavur Collectorate. The case against this respondent was built up on pure surmises and conjectures. Continuing the prosecution against this respondent will result in grave miscarriage of justice and offend the interest of the administration of justice.
(i) It is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the above Criminal R.C. with cost.
11. The learned counsel for the second respondent has vehemently argued that the respondent was working as a Tahsildar in Kumbakonam Taluk from 12.06.2002 to 31.08.2003. The said incident had happened on 16.07.2004. The learned counsel further argued that the second respondent is not at all connected with the said accident. The prosecution has not adduced any material justification for framing of charges against this respondent. The learned counsel further argued that the second respondent is not at all connected with the criminal case, the same was well considered by the learned Sessions Judge and discharged the second accused from the criminal proceedings. The learned Judge has perused the entire materials on record and felt that the reason assigned by the government is convincing. Further the learned counsel pointed out during the proceedings of the Mr.Justice K.Sampath Commission, the District Superintendent of Police, categorical admitted that this respondent did not issue licence to the School building. The incident took place in the year 2004, when the respondent was not working at Kumbakonam. As such he is not responsible for the said occurrence that happened, at the said School building. The said criminal case has not been covered as one of the accused in the said case. Hence, the second respondent has been discharged from the criminal case in S.C.No.275 of 2006 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur.
12. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and findings of the learned Principal Judge in Cr.M.P.No.806 of 2010, in S.C.No.275 of 2006, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur is an appropriate one. As such this Court does not warrant to interfere with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge.
13. Consequently, the above criminal revision petition No.580 of 2010 is dismissed and the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.806 of 2010 in S.C.No.275 of 2006, dated 30.07.2010 is confirmed. Connected Miscellaneous petitions is closed. This Court further directs the second respondent to cooperate with the prosecution case in the interest of justice and the confidence of the public, accordingly ordered.
am/SKN To
1.The Additional Superintendent of Thanjavur,
2.The Addl. Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.