Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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.

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.

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 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.