Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Since the both the criminal revision cases are interconnected and the petitioner in both the petitions is one and the same, this common order is pronounced. 1. In the affidavits filed by the petitioner/Accused-22, in both the petitions, it is stated as follows:-

1.(a) The charges leveled against him by the respondent are for offences u/s.120B r/w Sec.420 IPC and Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) P.C. Act, 1988, that even though the FIRs both from the F1, Chintadripet Police Station and the later by CBI contains 86 accused persons, the charge sheet was filed in 2008 was restricted to 21 persons only and several persons who are said to have played key roles as the very source of leakage were dropped for the reasons well known to the prosecution and as the attendance register for A.1 Duraimunisamy and A.2 Chinnathambi was admittedly tampered with by a blade, by the officials maintaining the attendance register who are shown as Lws and as a result even a hole is caused and found there and as the Forensic Experts certificate contradicts the statement of A.1 and A.2 said to have given statements voluntarily as how they climbed and gained entry into the DGP's chamber to remove the question papers as the Forensic Experts opinion is that even a trained climber cannot climb and further there is no sunshade and when admittedly private xerox shop has been used for taking print out on butter paper when the facilities are available in the DGP office itself, that neither the woman constable who typed out the question paper nor the private xerox shop people were cited as witnesses and that the complainant Nataraj, the then ADGP and Member Secretary of the Recruitment Board (TNUSRB) who gave the complaint is not a witness and the same FIR is repeated by CBI also, that the petitioner name does not find a place in any of the FIR and for other glaring reasons, petition for discharge was filed under Sec.227 of Cr.P.C., that it was dismissed and the revision preferred was also dismissed by this Court and it has also embraced a dismissal in the Supreme Court.

3.(a) The discharge petition filed by the accused is not maintainable on facts and on law, that the averments made by the accused are denied except those specifically admitted, that the case relates to leakage of question papers on 27.03.2005 and the re-exam held on 01.06.2005 for recruitment of Police constables for which written examination was conducted by TNUSRB, Chennai and that case was registered on the orders of this Court in W.P.No.25153/2005, that subsequent to cancellation of both the examns, an enquiry was conducted by DGP, Chennai and based on the enquiry report submitted by Shri P.Thamarai Kannan, IPS, an FIR in Cr. No.2600/2005 dated 08.12.2005 was registered by Chintadripet Police Station, that as subsequently ordered by this court, the case was re-registered by CBI, ACB, Chennai as RC 58(A) 2006 on 26.12.2006 and all the accused persons cited in Crime No.2600/2005 were shown as accused in the FIR registered by CBI also, that after detailed investigation, a charge sheet was filed before this court against 31 accused persons based on the evidence available against them, that A.11 N.Ravichandran entered into a criminal conspiracy with A.9 S.Devanath having the original C.C.No.10/09 (leakage of question paper of examination held on 27.03.2005) and the other (leakage of question paper of examination held on 01.06.2005), that the trial court accordingly split the charge sheet into two and thereupon the accused has again filed a petition for discharge u/s.227 Cr.P.C. The nature of evidence of the documents and witnesses are not the issue for consideration and that the trial judge has to see whether prima facie case is made out or not against the accused on the basis of the materials placed before him, that during the enquiry conducted by IPS officer, A.11, N.Ravinchandran had admitted the fact of obtaining the P.C exam question paper in advance from A.9 S.Devanath and handing over the same to Mohan (W67), Sivaraj (W68), Alamelu (W.65) and B.Nagamani (A20), that the averment of the accused that the substantive offences are not meaningful is not correct since the charge is yet to be framed by the court, that the fact that 22 accused have been shown in the charge prepared by the court as per directions of the High Court and the charge indicated 33 accused does not absolve the accused from the charges, that the person appearing in the FIR as accused may become a witness on conclusion of investigation and vice versa and that even though 87 accused were named in the FIR, charge sheet was filed against 31 accused persons only, based on the evidence available and collected during the investigation and that in respect of the remaining accused, no material evidence is available to prove the allegations levelled against them and that they are not being prosecuted. Even though various accused names are figuring in the report, the charge sheet was filed against 31 accused persons based on the available evidence and that in this regard, the statement of the senior police officers were recorded verbatim and the same were submitted before the trial court, that relevant witnesses and documents have been listed in the charge sheet to prove the charges against the accused, that at the stage of framing of charges, the trial court is not required to look for corroboration and probative value of the materials produced by the prosecution and prayed that the court may dismiss the discharge petition filed by the accused person.

4. After hearing both sides, the learned XII Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai has dismissed both the petitions by observing that prima facie case is made out to say "no" to discharge the petitioner from the charges. Hence, these revisions have been filed by the petitioner.

5. Point for consideration :-

Whether a strong suspicion and a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner from the materials available in the prosecution case?

Point :

6. The gist of the case goes to the effect that Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board (TNUSRB) conducted examination to recruit Grade 2 Constables. The written examination was slated to be held on 27.03.2005. The authorities smelt a rat that there was leakage of General Knowledge question paper. Hence, re-examination was ordered after cancelling the examination already held and the next date of examination was fixed on 01.06.2005. It was found out that there was a leakage of question paper again in General Knowledge and the examination conducted on 01.06.2005 also was written off. The Government directed enquiry in to the affair on the leakage of question papers. On the basis of the enquiry, a complaint was lodged with Chintadripet Police Station and a case was registered. Subsequently the case was transferred to CBCID, Chennai and by the orders of this Court, the investigation was transferred to CBI. Even though at the outset, 87 persons were arrayed as accused, charge sheet was laid on 31 accused and others were deleted from the charge sheet. After the charges were framed by the trial court, the petitioner moved this court with petitions to quash the charges framed against him, so also some other accused.

10. Repelling the contentions, the learned counsel Mr.N.Chandrasekar, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases would argue that at the stage of framing of charges, the trial court need not look for probative value of the materials on record produced by the prosecution, that the materials and clinching evidence are available to establish the allegations against the accused, that during investigation by CBI, the candidate Shri Sivakumar has given a statement before Judicial Magistrate and stated firmly that A.22 R.Anbalagan has received Rs.20,000/- from him for leaking the question paper alongwith A.21 Elumalai, that LW10, father of Sivakumar has also stated the above said version in his statement given under Section 131 Cr.P.C, that the call details produced alongwith the charge sheet would establish that the accused persons were having contacts with each other on the eve of the examination and in support of same, a statement of LW 64, Shri S.K.Hariharan, Divisional Engineer, BSNL, Chennai is also available, that the report of TNFSL expert had confirmed corrections made in respect of the entries pertaining to A.1 Shri Durai Munusamy and A.2 Shri Chinnathambi in the attendance register of the MT Cell of TNUSRB and this has been confirmed by the evidence of LW7 and LW4, that LW4 and LW7 also gave a detailed account of corrections made in attendance register, that the sanction order was obtained prior to the filing of the charge sheet itself and that no valid grounds are made out to set aside the order passed by the trial court.