Madras High Court
Venkatesan vs / on 10 January, 2022
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
Crl.O.P.No.20838 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.20838 of 2017
and
Crl.M.P.No.12389 of 2017
Venkatesan
S/o.Munisamy .. Petitioner/ Accused 1
/versus/
1.The State
Rep.by the Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Kancheepuram,
Kancheepuram District.
(Crime No.12 of 2013)
2. The Deputy Director General and
State Information Officer,
Government of India,
National Information Centre,
Tamil Nadu State Centre,
E2-A, Rajaji Bhavan,
Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 090. .. Respondents
nd
(2 respondent is impleaded
as per the order of this Court
dated 04.03.2019 made in
Crl.M.P.No.3260/2019 in
Crl.O.P.No.20838/2017)
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.20838 of 2017
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet filed in
C.C.No.18 of 2017 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-
II, Kancheepuram and quash the same.
For Petitioner :Mr.R.Sankarasubbu
For Respondents :Mr.R.Kishore Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl.side) for R1
: Mr.R.P.Pragadish for R2
------
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the final report in C.C.No.18 of 2017 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Kancheepuram against the petitioner/first accused for the offences under Sections 468, 471, 474, 420 of I.P.C, read with 34 of I.P.C. and 65 of T.T.Act.
2.The crux of the prosecution is that, A1 was appointed as a District Informatics Officer in Kancheepuram Taluk from 24.01.2004 to 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.20838 of 2017 31.12.2012. In order to preserve the secrecy of the Revenue Records, a computer was given to the District Informatics Officer with separate password and the duty of the A1 is that, wherever the computer is not properly working, he has to set right and also give a necessary technical support to the District Administration. When the matter stood thus, A3 sold the Government land to A2 in an unregistered document and A1 and A2 got patta in their names. In this connection, patta has been created in the computer with the help of A1, thereby the prosecution has been laid against all these persons.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/State Informatics Officer, Government of India, National Information Centre has filed a counter stating that the National Informatics Center (NIC) conducted an investigation in this regard and found that, there is no clear and material evidence against Shri. M.Venkatesan (petitioner) substantiating his involvement in the fraudulent changes in the data and it appears that, the charges made were based merely on suspicion. An enquiry report has also been filed along with the counter. The same also 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.20838 of 2017 indicates that, the Tamil-Nilam, the older version of software has been used by the State and it was suggested by the Committee that, the old version of the Tamil-Nilam software has been used for manipulations, since there are no entries recorded in “transactions–field”.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly submitted that, A1 was appointed as a District Informatics Officer, working at Kancheepuram Taluk and the alleged data manipulation took place in Sriperambadur Taluk and A1 has no direct access to such computer and the Forensic Science Report also clearly shows that, there is no such manipulation found in the A1's computer server and the Forensic's Report also indicates that, the patta documents might have been downloaded from a storage server by logging in to the database maintained therein and there is no evidence for preparation of patta documents with reference to item No.2 and it is also beyond the scope of this forensic examination. Hence, his contention is that absolutely there is no materials to constitute the offences against this petitioner and hence, he sought to quash the proceedings.
4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.20838 of 2017
5. It is his further contention that, the Internal Enquiry conducted by the NIC does not show any involvement of the petitioner and it is also indicated that the older version was used by the State, that has been the reason for the manipulation and the Enquiry Report ruled out the possibility of the involvement of A1 and the Memorandum of Understanding for installation and usage of National Informatics Center Computer Facilities also indicates that, the collection of data and entry/ preparation and validation will be entirely the responsibility of the State. Such being the position, it is the contention that the final report is filed merely on the basis of assumption.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the State/1st respondent submitted that one of the witnesses stated that the District Informatics Officer used to visit the computer and he would have manipulated. Hence, he opposed to quash the Criminal Original Petition.
7.Heard both sides and perused the entire materials available on records.
5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.20838 of 2017
8.Normally, when the final report indicates the prima facie materials, this Court will not make roving enquiry, while exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. However, when the entire materials taken in the face value would not constitute an offence, there is no useful purpose in keeping the final report forcing the petitioner undergo the ordeal of trial. The crux of the charge is that, A2 and A3 dealt with the revenue land and obtained computer patta with the help of A1. It is also noted that the entire manipulation, according to the prosecution, took place in the computer at Sriperumbadur Taluk. A1 was admittedly appointed as a District Informatics Officer at Kancheepuram. Though he was given the password with regard to the server, the fact remains that only in Sriperumbadur Taluk, one of the Centers, manipulation appears to have taken place. It is relevant to note that, the Forensic Examination of the server does not show any manipulation in the patta. Whereas, the technical people of NIC conducted Internal Enquiry and with the Technical Expertise, they found that the involvement of A1 is totally ruled out. In fact, they suggested that the old version of the computer 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.20838 of 2017 maintained by the State should be replaced.
9.In this scenario, in the absence of scientific evidence, in the name of Forensic Evidence, without any material to prove the alleged manipulation by A1, merely because some data has been manipulated somewhere else in the computer, which is not under the control of A1 at the relevant point of time, this Court is of the view that the entire prosecution case is nothing but a futile exercise and it does not serve any purpose. Accordingly, the final report in C.C.No.18 of 2017 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Kancheepuram against the petitioner is hereby quashed.
10.In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
10.01.2022 Index : Yes/No Speaking order/non speaking order ari/gba 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.20838 of 2017 To:
1. Judicial Magistrate-II, Kancheepuram.
2. Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.8/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.20838 of 2017 N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
ari Crl.O.P.No.20838 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.No.12389 of 2017 10.01.2022 9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis