Madras High Court
The State Represented By vs Dr.R.Leelavathi on 9 April, 2025
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
Crl.R.C.Nos.1312, 1314 and 1315 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 22.11.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 09.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.Nos.1312, 1314 and 1315 of 2014
The State represented by
The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras,
(V & A.C., Chennai
Crime No.8/AC/2003) ...Petitioner in all the RCs
Vs.
Dr.R.Leelavathi ...Respondent in Crl.R.C.No.1312/2014
W/o.Paul Gunasekaran,
Former Director of Veterinary Services.
Dr.J.Doraiswamy,
S/o.M.Jeevarathinam,Former Director,
Central Peripheral Lab, Saidapet. ...Respondent in Crl.R.C.No.1314/2014
Dr.R.Kathirvel,
S/o.S.N.Ramasamy, Former Dean,
Madras Veterinary College. ...Respondent in Crl.R.C.No.1315/2014
1/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 08:44:21 pm )
Crl.R.C.Nos.1312, 1314 and 1315 of 2014
All the Criminal Revision Cases filed under Section 397 read with
Section 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order passed by the Special Court for
the Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act at Chennai in
Crl.M.P.No.946/2012 and Crl.M.P.Nos.33 & 13 of 2013 in
C.C.No.84/2011, dated 25.06.2014.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar,
Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)
– in all the RCs
For Respondents : Mr.P.G.Santhosh Kumar
in Crl.R.C.Nos.1312 & 1314/2014
Mr.T.Saikrishnan
in Crl.R.C.No.1315/2014
******
COMMON ORDER
All these criminal revisions have been filed by the State against the order of the learned Special Judge, Special Court for the Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai, whereby, the petitioners and the other accused were discharged from the case against them in C.C.No.84 of 2011.
2/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 08:44:21 pm ) Crl.R.C.Nos.1312, 1314 and 1315 of 2014 2 Originally, P.R.Sundaram, Member of Legislative Assembly, Government of Tamilnadu, presented a complaint before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, on 21.11.2000 against Pulavar Senguttuvan, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry and nine others. On the directions issued by the Court, preliminary enquiry was conducted and report was submitted on 14.03.2001. After finalising the report, the same was sent to Government seeking concurrence. In the meantime, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, by an order dated 17.07.2003, directed the Director of Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Chennai, to register a regular case and proceed further based on the complaint given by said P.R.Sundaram.
2.1 Therefore a case in Cr.No.3/AC/22003/H.Q. was registered against A1 Pulavar Senguttuvan, Former Minister for Animal Husbandry, A2 Dr.R.Leelavathi, Former Director, Directorate of Veterinary Services and 8 other Pharmaceutical Companies, for the offence under Sections, 13(1)(c) and 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and 3/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 08:44:21 pm ) Crl.R.C.Nos.1312, 1314 and 1315 of 2014 Sections 120-B, 192, 406, 409 and 420 IPC. After completion of detailed enquiry, a report was sent to the Government to drop action against 8 pharmaceutical companies and to take further action. The Government vide its letter dated 02.01.2004 issued concurrence, as per which, after investigation the respondent police filed a charge sheet against seven accused viz. A1-Pulavar Senguttuvan, A2-Dr.R.Leelavathi, A3- Dr.M.E.Krishna Kumar, Former Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry Department, A4-C.R.Rajasekaran, Former FA & CAO, Animal Husbandry Department, A5-Dr.R.Kathirvelu, Former Dean of Madras Veterinary College, A6-M.P.Rajendran, Director (IVPM), Animal Husbandry Department, A7-Dr.J.Duraisamy, Director, Central Peripheral Lab. The said charge sheet was taken on file in C.C.No.84 of 2011. Pending the above case, all the accused have filed petitions under Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking to discharge them from the case.
2.2 The learned Special Judge, after hearing both the accused and the prosecution, by an order dated 25.06.2014, allowed the petitions and discharged all the accused observing that prosecution has failed to prove 4/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 08:44:21 pm ) Crl.R.C.Nos.1312, 1314 and 1315 of 2014 prima facie case to frame charges. Aggrieved over the findings of the learned Special Judge, eventually resulted in discharge of all the accused, State has filed criminal revisions before this Court. Pending revisions, A1 , A3, A4 and A6 died and hence the revisions filed against them were dismissed.
3 Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the petitioner/State would submit that during 1998-1999 and 1999-2000, all the accused A1 to A7 entered into criminal conspiracy to commit and abet one another in the commission of the offences in connection with the centralized purchase of drugs/medicines intended for the supply/distribution to 30 regions and units under the control and domain of A2. Pursuant to the conspiracy, awarded the tenders to ineligible bidders and rejected the eligible bidders by recording incorrect and false details, by manipulating/forging the computerized comparative statement of tenderers, who participated in the tender and all material particulars such as the production/availability of valid manufacturing license, good published reports, good trial report, non conviction certificates, pharmocopical 5/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 08:44:21 pm ) Crl.R.C.Nos.1312, 1314 and 1315 of 2014 standard of drugs, market standing for 2 years, valid small scale industries certificates, valid income tax certificates. Finally they placed purchase orders with a few of the drug manufactures/dealers of their own choice, which is violation of tender procedures to favour them and paid exorbitant rates, which would be the corresponding loss to the Government in Animal Husbandry Department. Thereby the second accused, on instructions of the first accused, abused her official position by obtaining pecuniary advantage in purchasing medicines and equipments. Hence the first and second accused along with other accused, by abusing their official position misappropriated and cheated the Government funds by manipulating the records.
3.1 After completing detailed enquiry, while the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption ( in short 'DVAC') was waiting for an order of sanction from the Government to proceed further, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, based on the private complaint filed by Mr.P.R.Sundaram, who was the Member of Legislative Assembly, called for report from DVAC and DVAC reported the Court stating that detailed enquiry has been 6/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 08:44:21 pm ) Crl.R.C.Nos.1312, 1314 and 1315 of 2014 completed and sanction is awaited. Based on the report filed by the DVAC, the learned Principal Sessions Judge passed an order directing DVAC to register regular case and therefore FIR was registered. Further administrative sanction order has also been received and filed along with the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The trial Court erred in holding that prosecution has not obtained proper sanction and there was also delay in obtaining sanction. The findings of the trial Court in discharging the accused mainly revolved on the ground of defect in sanction. As per the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2023) 1 SCC 329 in the case of Vijay Rajmohan vs. CBI, the consequence of non-compliance with the mandatory requirement shall not be quashing of criminal proceedings and the competent authority shall be accountable for the delay and be subject to judicial review. Therefore the finding of the trial Court, at any angle, is perverse.
3.2 The very appointment of the second accused as the Chairman of the Centralized Purchase Committee is in violation of the G.O.Ms.No.1075, Agriculture (AH3) dated 24.05.1988. Further she was 7/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 08:44:21 pm ) Crl.R.C.Nos.1312, 1314 and 1315 of 2014 promoted to the post of Director of Veterinary Services on 22.02.1999, overlooking her two seniors and she could not have taken the powers of scrutiny of purchase of drugs, which in fact as per the above Government Order, given to the Director of Animal Husbandry and not to the Director of Veterinary Services. Therefore under the political pressure of A1, who was the Minister for the Animal Husbandry Department, A2 was appointed as Chairman of Central Purchase Committee and subsequently overlooking her two seniors, promoted to the post of Director of Veterinary Services. The trial Court failed to take note of the above facts.
3.3 The prosecution witnesses have spoken about agreement of conspiracy between the accused and the trial Court, has rejected the same, testing the reliability of the same, which in fact cannot be done at the stage of framing of charges.
3.4 The trial Court considering the ingredients of the offence of abetment at the stage of framing of charges, without giving opportunity to the prosecution to prove its case, drawn adverse inference, which is perverse.
8/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 08:44:21 pm ) Crl.R.C.Nos.1312, 1314 and 1315 of 2014 3.5 The trial Court, violating the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, especially when the offence is under the Prevention of Corruption Act, erred in discharging all the accused, finding error in the sanction obtained by the prosecution and observing that prosecution has failed to establish prima facie case against the accused. Therefore there is a compelled reason to interfere with the decision of the trial Court and the prosecution has to be given opportunity to prove the offence committed by the accused.
4 The learned counsel for the respective accused/respondents would submit that there is no oral or documentary evidence to establish there was meeting of minds culminating in agreement of conspiracy. Prosecution has not established A1 and A2 conspired with other accused and A1 abetted the other accused to commit the offence as alleged by the prosecution. In fact A1 granted permission for calling for the tenders as a routine matter during the year 1998-1999 and there is neither mens rea nor criminal intention on the part of A1 and he had no role in preparation of comparative statement of rates of drugs. There is total non-application of 9/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 08:44:21 pm ) Crl.R.C.Nos.1312, 1314 and 1315 of 2014 mind by the sanctioning authority and the prosecution has failed to obtain sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C.
4.1 Further, earlier the Government had refused to grant sanction, which has been suppressed by the prosecution and there is no fresh materials collected after the earlier refusal order and hence the subsequent sanction obtained by the prosecution is not valid. There is no iota of evidence that A1 to A7 entered into an agreement of conspiracy to commit the alleged offence during 1998-99, 1999-2000 or prior to that period. It is alleged by the prosecution that A2 was given promotion overlooking two seniors, but the fact is that the file reached all the stages and finally it is signed by the Hon'ble Chief Minister and further the promotion of A2 was not challenged by anyone before the Court of law.
4.2 The investigating officer has every right to include any person as an accused depending upon the materials forthcoming during investigation and exclude any one of the accused cited in the FIR or complaint, but in this case the prosecution has not added any single medical 10/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 08:44:21 pm ) Crl.R.C.Nos.1312, 1314 and 1315 of 2014 company as accused. The letter dated 16.08.2000 addressed by the Animal Husbandry Department would clearly prove that the entire accusations and allegations are frivolous and contrary to the truth.
4.3 The enquiry report filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police would reveal that the witnesses have stated that they did not pay any amount to A1 or A2 either directly or through some agents for getting transfer as alleged by the prosecution. Even in the final report, the investigating officer has admitted that the Central Purchase Committee consisting A2 to A6 is responsible for opening of bids, preparation of comparative statement and the approved list of suppliers as per the tender procedure. It is the Director of Animal Husbandry, who has to verify and approve it as per G.O.Ms.No.1075 Agriculture (AH3) dated 24.05.1988, thus the final decision of approval was vested with Director of Animal Husbandry and not with th Director of Veterinary Services or Chairperson of the Central Purchase Committee. Therefore the trial Court, finding all the above facts true, acquitted all the accused by giving valid reasons, which does not call for any interference of this Court.
11/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 08:44:21 pm ) Crl.R.C.Nos.1312, 1314 and 1315 of 2014 5 Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the petitioner/State and the learned counsel for the respondents/accused and perused the materials available on record.
6 It is the specific case of the prosecution that the Government of Tamil Nadu have allocated a sum of Rs.1,85,93,011.50 and Rs.10,03,46,010/- during the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 respectively for purchase of medicines/drugs to 30 Regions/Centres in the State of Tamil Nadu through Centralised Purchase Committee (CPC), which was constituted vide G.O.Ms.No.1075, Agriculture (AH3) Department dated 24.05.1988. Subsequently the Director, Animal Husbandry Department, has nominated Mr.C.P.Chandramohan, the Additional Director of Animal Husbandry Department, as Chariman, CPC, vide his letter in R.O.C.No.33755/H1/98, dated 26.05.1998 with other members. The CPC met on 11.11.1998 and attended opening of Bids in sealed covers in respect of certain companies and also met on 18.11.1998, 25.11.1998 and 19.01.1999, but did not transact any business. In the meanwhile, A1, 12/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 08:44:21 pm ) Crl.R.C.Nos.1312, 1314 and 1315 of 2014 Minister of Animal Husbandry Department, called the Director of Animal Husbandry and recommended A2 for the post of Chairman, CPC, for which, the Director has explained the ineligibility of A2, but obeying the words of A1, A2 was nominated for the post of Chairman, CPC and the Government has also approved the same and as per the Government Order , A2 can hold the post of Chairman, CPC, till 31.03.1999 and she took charge on 29.01.1999 as per her own letter. Subsequently she was promoted to the post of Director, Veterinary Services on 22.02.1999, by overlooking two of her seniors, as per the instructions of A1.
6.1 After promotion, A2 sent a letter to Government on 24.02.1999, informing the Government that she was exercising powers granted under G.O.Ms.No.1075, Agriculture (AH3) Department, dated 24.05.1988 for purchase of drugs, but, in fact, power of scrutiny of purchase of drugs, as per the said Government Order, were given to the Director of Animal Husbandry and not to the Director of Veterinary Services and A2 had not chosen to seek clarification from the Government or for modification of the above Government Order. Hence continuation of A2 as 13/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 08:44:21 pm ) Crl.R.C.Nos.1312, 1314 and 1315 of 2014 Chairperson of Central Purchase Committee on or after 22.01.1999 i.e. after promotion to the post of Director, Veterinary Services, is illegal.
6.2 Further CPC met on 03.02.1999 at Chennai headed by A2 and the tenders for the year 1998-99 were opened and after verification of necessary documents, compilation statement was prepared, however, A2 rejected most of the bids based on trial report. Based on the compilation statement, CPC consisting of A2, A3 to A7 selected 195 drugs and medicines for the year 1998-99 from and out of about 237 drugs, medicines and injections from the firms just in 2 days only i.e. on 25.02.1999 and 26.02.1999, on which dates only CPC met. After finalisation, approved list of firms and their drugs were prepared and handed over by A2 to the Regional Joint Directors in person under acknowledgment during the review meeting conducted by A1, the Minister for Animal Husbandry on 02.03.1999 at DMS campus, Chennai. Thereafter A2 instructed all the Regional Joint Director to remain at Chennai and meet her on 03.03.1999. Accordingly, when the Regional Joint Directors met A2 on 03.03.1999, she gave computerized model indents and forcibly obtained signatures from 14/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 08:44:21 pm ) Crl.R.C.Nos.1312, 1314 and 1315 of 2014 them in two sets and retaining one with her, given the other set to the Regional Joint Directors. Thus, during the year 1998-99 total loss of Rs.82,84,326.63 was incurred due to the above irregularities committed by A2 to A7 under the instructions of A1.
6.3 Similarly for the year 1999-2000, after reconstituting CPC, A2 convened meeting of Regional Joint Directors on 04.12.1999 at Hotel Feminal, Trichy, and handed over computerized model indents to them and obtained signatures as done in the previous year. The approved list of firms was prepared by CPC under the chairmanship of A7, showing undue favour to certain companies by manipulating compilation statement and rejected the eligible tenderers by assigning incorrect reasons as done by A2. Thus, during the year 1999-2000 total loss of Rs.89,73,637.01 was incurred due to the irregularities. Therefore during the period from 1998-99 and 1999-2000, A1 to A7 entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit and abet one another in the commission of offence as stated above and hence after investigation charge sheet was filed against all the accused revealing all the irregularities committed by A1 to A7 by abusing their official position. 15/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 08:44:21 pm ) Crl.R.C.Nos.1312, 1314 and 1315 of 2014 7 The main defence of the respondents/accused is that the order of sanction obtained by the prosecution is not valid. With regard to sanction, it is useful to refer the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2023) 1 SCC 329 in the case of Vijay Rajmohan vs CBI (Anti Corruption Branch), wherein it is held as follows:
22. Statutory provisions requiring sanction before prosecution either under Section 197CrPC or under Section 97 of the PC Act also intend to serve the very same purpose of protecting a public servant. These protections are not available to other citizens because of the inherent vulnerabilities of a public servant and the need to protect them. However, the said protection is neither a shield against dereliction of duty nor an absolute immunity against corrupt practices. The limited immunity or bar is only subject to a sanction by the appointing authority.16/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 08:44:21 pm ) Crl.R.C.Nos.1312, 1314 and 1315 of 2014 8 Further recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, in the case of State vs. G.Easwaran, which is reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 643 has held that the High Court committed an error in quashing the prosecution on the ground that the sanction for prosecution was illegal and invalid. The Hon'ble Apex Court also held that the validity of sanction is an issue that must be examined during the course of trial. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder:
“14. Thus, there is no doubt that the High Court committed an error in quashing the prosecution on the ground that the sanction to prosecute is illegal and invalid. In conclusion, we find that the objections raised in the revision petition against the Special Court's order dismissing the discharge application were identical to the grounds raised in the petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C., from which the present appeal arises. Second, apart from being congruent and overlapping, the respondent could not demonstrate any material change in facts and circumstances between the dismissal of the revision petition by the High Court and the filing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. Third, the validity of the sanction can always be examined during the course 17/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 08:44:21 pm ) Crl.R.C.Nos.1312, 1314 and 1315 of 2014 of the trial and the problems due to the typographical error as alleged by the State could have been explained by producing the file at the time of trial. Fourth, it is settled that a mere delay in the grant of sanction for prosecuting a public authority is not a ground to quash a criminal case.”
9 Therefore mere defect in sanction will not affect the case of the prosecution. Hence finding of the trial Court with regard to validity of sanction, which lead to discharge of all the accused, is not acceptable as the same is perverse.
10 The other defence of the respondents is that there is no prima facie materials showing criminal conspiracy or intention on the part of A1 and A2 and they abetted the other accused to commit the offence as alleged by the prosecution. With regard to the above defence and finding of the trial Court regarding there is no meeting of mind and there is no iota of evidence showing the criminal intention of A1 and A2, it is to be noted that once a case has been registered and after investigation charge sheet has also been filed levelling allegations, the Court has to afford an opportunity to the prosecuting agency to prove its case and to substantiate the materials 18/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 08:44:21 pm ) Crl.R.C.Nos.1312, 1314 and 1315 of 2014 collected by the prosecution during investigation. To prove the allegation of conspiracy, there may not be any express contract and it can be gathered from the conduct of the parties, which can be decided only after trial and not at this stage. In this case, the trial Court observed that there is no cogent evidence to show that there was meeting of two minds in the matter of commission of the offence and in absence of which, the charge sheet cannot be sustained, which is unsustainable. It is settled proposition of law that while dealing with the petition seeking quashing/discharge, the Court has to see the allegations levelled in the charge sheet and the materials produced by the prosecution and not the defence taken by the accused. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the High Court, while dealing with the petition seeking quash, cannot appreciate the evidence, but can evaluate material and documents on records to the extent of its prima facie satisfaction about the existence of sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and whether that materials are enough to record conviction or not can be decided after trial. This Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, cannot conduct roving enquiry and the veracity and validity of the materials collected by the prosecution can only be tested during trial. 19/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 08:44:21 pm ) Crl.R.C.Nos.1312, 1314 and 1315 of 2014 After framing charges and after completion of trial, in case, prosecution is not able to prove its case, the accused can always get the benefits of doubts. Now it is pre-mature to say that there is no evidence against the accused and hence the reason assigned by the trial Court to discharge the accused is perverse.
11 In the present case, a careful reading of the allegations levelled against the respondents/accused in the charge sheet and the materials annexed therein, reveal that there is prima facie case to proceed against the accused. The defence of the respondents/accused before the trial Court are all nothing but a matter for trial.
12 In view of the above reasons and observations and also decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, these criminal revision cases are allowed and the order of the learned Special Judge, Special Court for the Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai, made in Crl.M.P.No.946/2012 and Crl.M.P.Nos.33 & 13 of 2013 in C.C.No.84/2011, dated 25.06.2014, are set aside. The trial Court is directed 20/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 08:44:21 pm ) Crl.R.C.Nos.1312, 1314 and 1315 of 2014 to frame charges and proceed the matter in accordance with law. The respondents/accused are at liberty to take all their defence during trial before the trial Court.
09.04.2025 Neutral Citation : Yes/No cgi To
1. The Special Judge, Special Court for the Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
Copy to: 1) The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court Madras
2) The Section Officer, ER Section, High Court Madras 21/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 08:44:21 pm ) Crl.R.C.Nos.1312, 1314 and 1315 of 2014 P.VELMURUGAN, J., cgi Pre-Delivery Order in Crl.R.C.Nos.1312, 1314 and 1315 of 2014 09.04.2025 22/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 08:44:21 pm )