Madras High Court
R.Vivekanandan vs State By Deputy Superintendent Of ... on 10 February, 2023
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.R.C.No.908 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 18.11.2022
PRONOUNCED ON : 10.02.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.R.C.No.908 of 2022
R.Vivekanandan ... Petitioner
Vs.
State by Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Erode.
Cr.No.3/AC/2017/ER. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, against the order passed by the learned Special
Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate Erode in Cr.M.P.No.5564/2021 in Special
C.C.No.2/2019 dated 06.06.2022.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.R.Malarvannan
For Respondent : Mr.S.Udayakumar,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
*****
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the order, dated 06.06.2022 made in Crl.M.P.No.5564 of 2021 in Special C.C.No.2 of 2019 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Erode (trial Court). Page No.1 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.908 of 2022
2.The case of the prosecution is as follows:-
(i)On the complaint given by the defacto complainant, the respondent Police registered a case against the petitioner/accused in Crime No.3/AC/2017/ER, for offence under Sections 7 & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). After completion of investigation, the respondent Police filed charge sheet and the case was taken on file in Special C.C.No.2 of 2019 by the trial Court. As per the charge sheet, the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner posted as Inspector of Police, Nambiyur Circle, Gobichettypalayam, Erode District between 13.01.2014 and 18.05.2017. The defacto complainant T.Sekar @ T.Palanisamy is a resident within the limits of Nambiyur Police Station. He is an agriculturist and business man. One Muthuramalingam was a tenant under the defacto complainant. The younger son of Muthuramalingam viz., Santhosh @ Santhosh Kumar was harassing the daughter of the defacto complainant viz., Sathya, hence the defacto complainant asked the said Muthuramalingam to vacate the house. On 23.03.2017, the said Muthuramalingam vacated the house. On the same night, the sons of Muthuramalingam viz., Santhosh @ Santhosh Kumar, his brother Dinesh and other family members came to the house of the defacto complainant and Page No.2 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.908 of 2022 picked up a quarrel. During the quarrel, both parties assaulted each other.
Hence, a case and counter case were registered against both the parties. Crime No.98 of 2017 was registered against the defacto complainant and three others and Crime No.99 of 2017 was registered against Muthuramalingam and four others. The petitioner/accused is the Investigating Officer in both the cases and no arrest made.
(ii)The defacto complainant's daughter Sathya was continuously harassed by younger son of Muthuramalingam viz., Santhosh @ Santhosh Kumar. During night between 21.04.2017 and 22.04.2017, the said Santhosh @ Santhosh Kumar attempted to kidnap Sathya, the daughter of the defacto complainant, the defacto complainant and his wife resisted and raised alarm, on hearing the same, the neighbours came to rescue. Sensing trouble, the said Santhosh @ Santhosh Kumar and two of his accomplice escaped scaling the wall, at that time, the said Santhosh @ Santhosh Kumar got injured and admitted in the Government Hospital, Tiruppur and lodged the complaint that he was assaulted by the defacto complainant and a case in Crime No.141 of 2017 was registered by the petitioner/accused for offence under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 342 and 307 of IPC on 22.04.2017 against the defacto Page No.3 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.908 of 2022 complainant and six others including the defacto complainant's son Srisarvesh. On the same incident, on the complaint of the defacto complainant, a case in Crime No.142 of 2017 was registered for offence under Sections 448, 355 and 506(i) of IPC against the said Santhosh @ Santhosh Kumar and others.
(iii)The petitioner/accused, who is the Investigating Officer in both cases Crime Nos.141 & 142 of 2017, on 23.04.2017 secured the defacto complainant and brought his family members to the Police Station. Prior to it, the neighbour of the defacto complainant Elangovan already secured and detained. The defacto complainant was informed that his wife Pathmavathy is also an accused and she would be arrested and remanded to judicial custody in Crime No.141 of 2017. For not effecting arrest of his wife Pathmavathy, the petitioner/accused demanded bribe amount of Rs.50,000/- from the defacto complainant. Thereafter, the relatives of the defacto complainant was called, who brought the money. On compulsion and by force, to save his wife, the bribe amount of Rs.50,000/- was handed over to the petitioner/accused. Thereafter, the defacto complainant and his neighbour Elangovan arrested and remanded to judicial custody. This is the first demand and receipt of bribe Page No.4 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.908 of 2022 amount by the petitioner/accused.
(iv)Thereafter, the defacto complainant and his neighbour Elangovan were granted bail, with a direction to appear before Nambiyur Police Station, where the petitioner/accused is the Inspector of Police. When the defacto complainant appeared before Nambiyur Police, the petitioner/accused demanded further bribe amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to delete his son's name Srisarvesh from the case in Crime No.141 of 2017. The defacto complainant informed that his son Srisarvesh is not at all involved in this case and he was taking treatment at the time of incident, further he is a College student and his future will be spoiled. Not heeding to the same, the demand was persistent on several occasion directly and through mobile phone. Later, the demand was reduced to Rs.50,000/- and again raised to Rs.1,00,000/-. Finally, the petitioner/accused agreed to receive Rs.1,00,000/- as bribe amount in two installments of Rs.50,000/- each. Not willing to pay the bribe amount, the defacto complainant lodged the complainant to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption/respondent Police on 17.05.2017. To confirm the demand of bribe, the respondent Police placed voice recorder on the defacto complainant and the demand of the petitioner/accused was confirmed. During the course of Page No.5 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.908 of 2022 investigation, the official witnesses were fetched, pre-trap proceedings explained and finally, the trap proceedings was laid. The petitioner/accused demanded and received part of the bribe amount of Rs.50,000/- on 18.05.2017. The trap team on getting prearranged signal entered Nambiyur Police Station, enquired the petitioner/accused and conducted phenolphthalein test, which proves the petitioner received the bribe amount. In presence of official witnesses, the bribe amount was recovered from the petitioner's pant pocket under recovery mahazar. On completion of investigation, charge sheet filed before the trial Court in Special C.C.No.2 of 2019.
(v)The respondent Police though filed the charge sheet for offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Act, due to oversight, Section 7 of the Act not included in the charges by the trial Court. Hence, the respondent Police filed Crl.M.P.No.15716 of 2019 to include Section 7 of the Act, the trial Court, by order, dated 04.12.2020 allowed the petition, against which, the petitioner filed Crl.R.C.No.53 of 2021, this Court, by order, dated 18.02.2021 considering the submissions of the petitioner/accused and the respondent Police dismissed the revision finding that 'an error had crept in and that charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Page No.6 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.908 of 2022 had been left out despite materials being available and directed the trial Court to add Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.'
(vi)After six months, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 218 Cr.P.C., in Crl.M.P.No.5564 of 2021 in Special C.C.No.2 of 2019 contending that the occurrence on 23.04.2017 is a separate incident wherein it is projected that the petitioner/accused received a bribe amount of Rs.50,000/- for not arresting the defacto complainant's wife Pathmavathy. The second incident projected on 18.05.2017, on which day, the petitioner is said to have received Rs.50,000/- as bribe amount for deleting the defacto complainant's son Srisarvesh from the case is a separate incident, for which the trap laid, both the offences are two different offences. Further, the defacto complainant in his complaint, dated 17.05.2017 not stated about the earlier incident, dated 23.04.2017. Hence, a separate charges to be tried for occurrence on 23.04.2017 and 18.05.2017. This petition was considered and the trial Court, by a reasoned order, dated 06.06.2022 dismissed the petition, against which the present criminal revision.
Page No.7 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.908 of 2022
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable since the Court below, erred in holding that both occurrence on 23.04.2017 and 18.05.2017 form part of the same transaction. It is to be seen that there was no common design to commit both the offences at the initial point of time. He further submitted that the first alleged occurrence on 23.04.2017 was completed on that day itself. None of the witnesses spoke on that day any plan for committing the next offence on 18.05.2017. For the simple reason that the petitioner holding same status as a public servant in both the distinct occurrence, subsequent occurrence cannot be clubbed together. He further submitted that the mandate of Section 218 of Cr.P.C., is that for every distinct offence, there shall be a separate charge and every such charge will be tried separately. Under this provision, a joint trial is contemplated only if the accused applies in writing to the Court for a joint trial. In this case, the petitioner not made any such application. The learned counsel further submitted that the trial Court referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court on wrong premise. The Court below coming to the conclusion that both the occurrences form part of the same is not proper and there is no common design or conspiracy to commit both offences and the second offence is not sequel to the earlier one. Hence, it cannot be termed as Page No.8 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.908 of 2022 same transaction. The alleged occurrence, dated 23.04.2017 is complete in all forms. In view of the same, it is not proper for the Court below to invoke Sections 219 & 220 Cr.P.C.
4.He further submitted that the joint trial is an exception which the Court below failed to look into. In the complaint of the defacto complainant, dated 16.05.2017, there is no whisper about the earlier occurrence, dated 23.04.2017. The statement recorded subsequently under Section 161 Cr.P.C., on 19.05.2017, is an improved version. Likewise, to corroborate the earlier demand, dated 23.04.2017, the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., of Pathmavathy recorded nearly six months thereafter on 29.11.2017. Thus, the respondent Police improved its case by clubbing the earlier occurrence which does not form part of the complaint or the investigation initiated against the petitioner.
5.In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following citations:-
● In the case of “State through CBI New Delhi Versus Jitender Kumar Singh reported in AIR 2014 SC 1169” it had held that the offence under Sections 8, 9 & 12 can be committed by any person who need not necessarily be a public servant. Such an offence can, therefore, be Page No.9 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.908 of 2022 committed by a public servant or by a private person or by a combination of the two.
● In the case of “Om Parkash Versus State of Haryana reported in AIR 2006 SC 894” it had held that where demand has not been proved Section 20 will have no application.
● In the case of “Bhupinder Singh Patel Versus CBI reported in 2008 SCC OnLine Del 711”, it had held that the immunity for the bribe giver is provided where he is unwilling to pay illegal gratification to a public servant and approaches the Police agency in order to get the public servant trapped while accepting the bribe.
● In the case of “Venkata Saravanan @ S.A.R.Prasanna Venkatachariar Chaturvedi Versus State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai, dated 22.08.2012 in Crl.R.C.No.275 of 2010”, this Court emphasized the act alleged against the accused must be connected in some way which spells out a continuity of action followed by its consequences and incidents until the series of acts or group of connected acts come to an end either by attainment of the object or by being put an end to or abandoned. ● In the case of “M.Veerappan Versus State of Ors., reported in MANU/TN/0954/2000”, it had held that the question of bribe would arise when there are after and acceptance or a demand and after therefore.
● In the case of “V.Arumugam Versus State reported in MANU/TN/1677/2022” this Court relying the case of “Bhupinder Singh Patel Versus CBI reported in 2008 SCC OnLine Del 711” emphasized that offering bribe to bribe takes are also liable to be changed for the offence under the Sections of IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act. ● In the case of “J.Duraimunusamy Versus State of Tamil Nadu reported in MANU/TN/1320/2011”, it had held that on the ground of misjoinder of charges and misjoinder of accused, it is for the trial Court to split up the case into two.
6.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing Page No.10 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.908 of 2022 for the respondent Police submitted that both the occurrence on 23.04.2017 and 15.05.2017 are for demand of bribe and its acceptance by the petitioner/accused for doing favour to the defacto complainant in connection with Crime No.141 of 2017. The demand and receipt of bribe amount of Rs.50,000/- on 18.05.2017 is to favour for not arresting Padmavathy, the wife of the defacto complainant. On 23.04.2017, the second demand is to favour the defacto complainant to delete the name of his Srisarvesh from the charge sheet. The defacto complainant not willing to pay the bribe amount, lodged the complaint before the respondent Police. After receipt of complaint, trap was laid on 18.05.2017 and the same was successful. Both the occurrence on 23.04.2017 and 18.05.2017 are chain of events for demand of bribe and it forms in one series of act and fact so connected together forming the same transaction. After completion of investigation, charge sheet filed on 05.07.2017 for offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Act. The trial Court took the case on file as Special C.C.No.2 of 2019 on 08.07.2019, framed charges against the petitioner for offence under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Act. Due to oversight and mistake, the trial Court omitted to include Section 7 of the Act. Though it was included in the charge sheet, the prosecution finding the mistake filed a petition before the trial Court Page No.11 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.908 of 2022 under Section 216 Cr.P.C., in Crl.M.P.No.15716 of 2019 in Special C.C.No.2 of 2019 to add left out Section 7 of the Act in Special C.C.No.2 of 2019. The trial Court finding that the charge sheet includes offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Act with statement and materials, allowed the petition filed by the prosecution on 04.12.2020. Immediately, the petitioner filed Crl.R.C.No.53 of 2021 and this Court on 18.02.2021 by a detailed order confirmed the inclusion of Section 7 of the Act. Six months thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 218 Cr.P.C., in Crl.M.P.No.5564 of 2021 in Special C.C.No.2 of 2019 before the trial Court seeking to file separate charge sheet for offences committed on 23.04.2017 and 18.05.2017. The trial Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner, by order, dated 06.06.2022 holding the allegation that are levelled against the petitioner shall fall within the purview of same transaction.
7.He further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in many judgments had held it is not necessary the complaint to contain complete details of the crime and it is not an encyclopedia to contain all facts. During investigation, if further facts are found, it is bound to be included in the final report. In this case, the witnesses namely the defacto complainant, his wife, neighbour Page No.12 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.908 of 2022 Elangovan, relatives and others all clearly stated about the demand and receipt of bribe amount by the petitioner on 23.04.2017. Further, for the trap proceedings, the defacto complainant, official witnesses and others spoke about the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount on 18.05.2017. Added to it, the phenolphthalein test confirmed the petitioner receiving the bribe amount. The witnesses clearly stated about both the occurrences on 23.04.2017 and 18.05.2017 arise out of single transaction, more particularly, the demand of bribe was to do favour to the defacto complainant and his family members in Crime No.141 of 2017. Thus, non mentioning in the complaint of occurrence held on 23.04.2017 is neither cause any prejudice to the accused nor fatal to the case of the prosecution.
8.It is further submitted that when several acts committed by a person show a unity of purpose or design, it may be an indication that all these acts form part of the same transaction. In this case, it is seen that a thread is running through the offences committed on 23.04.2017 and 18.05.2017. Section 220 Cr.P.C., lays down that if in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial Page No.13 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.908 of 2022 for, every such offences. Thus, both factually and legally charging the petitioner for demand of bribe amount and the offence committed on 23.04.2017 and 18.05.2017 can be tried together in a single case. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the criminal revision case.
9.This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.
10.The primary ground on which the petitioner made his submissions that the occurrence which took place on 23.04.2017 is completed on that day itself. The second occurrence projected against the petitioner on 18.05.2017 is a separate occurrence. Hence, the alleged offences projected against the petitioner for both dates to be tried separately, is not proper. It is not in dispute that the petitioner, who is the Inspector of Police, Nambiyur Police Station, is the Investigating Officer in Crime No.141 of 2017, in which the defacto complainant herein, his family members and friends are accused. The occurrence in Crime No.141 of 2017 took place on the night hours on 22.04.2017, when the defacto complainant's daughter Sathya was attempted to be kidnapped, which was thwarted by the defacto complainant and his family Page No.14 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.908 of 2022 members. Due to which, the defacto complainant, his erstwhile tenant Muthuramalingam's younger son Santhosh @ Santhosh Kumar and two others sustained injuries. For commotion and exchange of blows, the defacto complainant lodged the complaint and a case in Crime No.142 of 2017 was registered by the petitioner. Both the cases are in the nature of case in counter investigated by the petitioner as Inspector of Nambiyur Police Station.
11.Earlier to the said occurrence, yet another incident took place on 22.03.2017, at that time there was exchange of blows, for which, two cases in Crime Nos.98 & 99 of 2017 were registered by the petitioner, but none was arrested. This case was also in the nature of case in counter. On 23.04.2017, the defacto complainant was travelling in his car along with his family members, at that time, the petitioner intercepted them, took the defacto complainant to the Police Station. The defacto complainant's family followed them and Pathmavathy, the wife of the defacto complainant was present outside the police station. At that time, the petitioner demanded bribe of Rs.50,000/- from the defacto complainant for not arresting his wife in case in Crime No.141 of 2017 failing which Pathmavathy will be arrested and detained. In order to save his wife from ignominy and sufferings, the defacto Page No.15 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.908 of 2022 complainant gave the bribe amount of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner. The petitioner received the same and let go Pathmavathy without arrest from the Police Station. The defacto complainant and his neighbour Elangovan were arrested and later granted conditional bail with a condition to appear before the Petitioner, Inspector of Nambiyur Police Station. From 08.05.2017 onwards, the demand for further bribe was made by the petitioner persistently on several occasions to delete the name of the defacto complainant's son Srisarvesh from the charge sheet, who is a college going student. Initially, the petitioner made demand for Rs.2,00,000/- and finally, reduced to Rs.1,00,000/-, which was to be paid in two equal installments. The defacto complainant not willing to pay the bribe amount, lodged the complaint to the respondent Police. The Vigilance Police conducted preliminary enquriy, confirmed the demand, registered the case, laid trap proceedings. During the trap proceedings, the petitioner was caught red handed while receiving the bribe amount in presence of official witnesses and the phenolphthalein test confirmed the receipt of bribe amount.
12.The primary contention of the petitioner is that in the complaint, dated 17.05.2017 to the Vigilance Police, there is no mention about earlier the Page No.16 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.908 of 2022 occurrence, dated 23.04.2017 and it is a separate occurrence, for which, separate charge sheet to be filed is not proper. From the facts and sequence of events, it is seen that the petitioner being the Investigating Officer in Crime No.141 of 2017, was making demand and extracting bribe from the defacto complainant to do a favour in Crime No.141 of 2017. It is a series of offence connected one to one. The first demand is to favour the defacto complainant's wife Pathmavathy and the second demand is to favour his son Srisarvesh. The other contention that for the occurrence, dated 23.04.2017, the defacto complainant would be an abettor punishable under Section 12 of the Act and prosecution ought to be launched against the defacto complainant, are not sustainable. While the petitioner demanding the bribe amount, the defacto complainant was under the compulsion to pay, otherwise his wife who was present at that time in the Police Station will be arrested in Crime No.141 of 2017. The defacto complainant not made immediate complaint, the petitioner's contention may have some force, had the occurrence taken place after the Amendment 16 of 2018, which came into effect from 26.07.2018. In this case, both the demands are prior to the Amendment. Hence, both factually and legally, the contentions of the petitioner are not sustainable. Page No.17 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.908 of 2022
13.From the statement of witnesses, it is seen that the defacto complainant and Elangovan were confined in the Police Station pursuant to Crime No.141 of 2017, at that time, the defacto complainant's wife Pathmavathy and relatives were standing outside the Police Station. The demand of bribe amount of Rs.50,000/- was to avoid arrest of the defacto complainant's wife Pathmavathy in Crime No.141 of 2017. In order to save her wife from harassment and ignominy, the defacto complainant was forced to pay the bribe amount. It was not voluntary and no way it can be termed as abetment. The greed for bribe by the petitioner was continuous. Lastly, he was caught red handed during the trap proceedings on 18.05.2017. Section 218 of Cr.P.C., states that for every distinct offence of which any person is accused, there shall be a separate charges, and every charge shall be tried separately. In case of accused person by an application in writing, so desires, such separate charge can be tried together. For clear understanding Section 218 of Cr.P.C., is extracted hereunder:-
“218. Separate charges for distinct offences.
(1) For every distinct offence of which any person is accused there shall be a separate charge, and every such charge shall be tried separately: Provided that where the accused person, by an Page No.18 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.908 of 2022 application in writing, so desires and the Magistrate is of opinion that such person is not likely to be prejudiced thereby, the Magistrate may try together all or any number of the charges framed against such person.
(2) Nothing in sub- section (1) shall affect the operation of the provisions of sections 219, 220, 221 and 223.”
14.From the sequence of events and facts of the case, it is clear the offences are of same kind committed within the space of 12 months and it is in respect of the same person. Offences of same kind, punishable with the same amount of punishment under the same Section of the India Penal Code or any special or local law. They can be charged together. As per Section 220 of Cr.P.C., the trial for more than one offence is permissible if in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction. Furthermore offences than one are committed by the same person, he can be charged and tried at one trial for every such offence. Added to it, it is seen that in the event of series of fact doubtful in nature, then to the accused can be charged and tried. Further, Section 218(2) Cr.P.C., is an exception to Section 218(1) Cr.P.C. The facts of the case revealed the chain of events of same kind with same series of acts so connected together to form the same transaction, which is within the exception under Section 218(2) of Cr.P.C. Page No.19 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.908 of 2022
15.The Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “Neeraj Dutta Versus State (Govt. of N.C.T of Delhi) reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1029” had answered to reference whether circumstantial evidence can be used to prove demand of illegal gratification, answered in affirmative “it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a Public Servant under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, based on after evidence adduced by the prosecution”.
16.In view of the above, this Court comes to the conclusion that the allegations that are levelled against the petitioner comes within the purview of same transaction. Hence, the order, dated 06.06.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.5564 of 2021 in Special C.C.No.2 of 2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Erode, is hereby confirmed. This Criminal Revision case stands dismissed.
17.In this case, the offence is of the year 2017, charge sheet filed in the year 2019, the trial is yet to commence. For one reason or other, it is getting Page No.20 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.908 of 2022 delayed. Hence, this Court directs the trial Court to give top priority to the case in Special C.C.No.2 of 2019 and proceed with the trial on day to day basis and complete the trial without further delay.
10.02.2023 Neutral Citation: Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No vv2 To
1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate Court/Special Judge, Erode.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Erode.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Page No.21 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.908 of 2022 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
vv2 PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN Crl.R.C.No.908 of 2022 10.02.2023 Page No.22 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis