Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(vi) The information about the petitioner' business activities and income thereof is suppressed and purposely omitted with a view to make a prima facie case against the petitioners.

5. Counter affidavits have been filed in both the Criminal Original Petitions by the respondent-State Government, the gist of which is as follows:-

After making a confidential inquiry about the allegation of wealth by Thiru B. Ranganathan, MLA, and his wife for the period between 17.6.1996 and 31.10.2001, during which period he has served as MLA, a case in Cr. No. 3/AC/202/HQ was registered for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Investigation revealed that the petitioner and his family members have amassed wealth to an extent of Rs. 6,47,34,599.92/=, disproportionate to the known sources of his income.

6. On 31.8.2004 permission was accorded by the Hon'ble Speaker of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly to prosecute the Mr. B. Ranganathan, MLA, who is A.1 in the Calendar Case. The First Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge who was holding full additional charge of the post of Principal Sessions and City Civil Judge/Special Judge, Chennai, took cognizance of the said offences against A.1 and his wife A.2 in C.C. No. 23 of 2004 on 14.9.2004 and made over the case to the Court of IV Additional City Civil/Additional Sessions/Special Judge for trial and summons have been issued on 16.9.2004 to the petitioners for their appearance before the court on 4.10.2004. A.1 filed Crl.O.P. No. 29928 of 2004 for quashing the FIR. He also challenged the correctness of the cognizance taken by the Special Judge/Principal Sessions Judge on 14.9.2004 in the said C.C. No. 23 of 2004 in the course of his arguments advanced therein. But this court dismissed the said Crl. Original Petition on 29.9.2004 and the petitioner did not challenge the correctness of the said orders in the appropriate forum. The contention of the petitioner that the IV Additional Sessions Court, Chennai, which is one among the Special Judges, appointed under Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, had no power to take cognizance of the offences mentioned in the final report filed against the petitioner (A.1) and his wife (A.2) on the reason of absence of notification from the Central Government as per Section 4(2) of the said Act specifying the cases to be tried by each of the said Special Courts is erroneous. The further contention that the I Additional Sessions Judge has no power to transfer the case to the IV Additional Sessions Court is also not sustainable. More than one Special Court appointed for conducting the cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act were functioning within the Sessions Division of Chennai for a very long period. On 30.4.1997, the State Government by issuing Notification, established 3 courts of City Civil and Sessions Judges/Special Judge in addition to the Courts of Principal and Additional City Civil and Sessions Judges/Special judges already functioning in Madras Sessions Division and appointed Special Judges for the said three courts to try exclusively on day to day basis certain criminal cases. The Principal and the I Additional to VII Additional Sessions City Civil courts have been duly appointed by the State Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to take cognizance and try the offences punishable under the said Act and also the abatement, conspiracy to commit and attempt to commit the said offences within the territorial jurisdiction of Chennai Sessions Division as per the Notification issued in G.O. Ms. No. 548 Home (Courts II) department dated 16.4.1997. The FIRs and charge sheets in such cases are being filed before the Court of Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge/Special Judge which in turn makes over the said cases to the other Special Court/Additional City Civil and Sessions Courts.

10. The point for consideration is Whether the summons issued on 16.9.2004 under Section 61 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in C.C. No. 23 of 2004 should be quashed?

11. The petitioner in Crl. O.P. No: 31737 of 2004 Thiru B. Ranganathan is a sitting MLA of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. The petitioner in Crl. O.P. No: 31736 of 2004 is his wife. The respondent-police have filed a final report/charge sheet against the petitioenrs as A.1 and A.2 for alleged offences under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on the ground that the petitioners and their family members have acquired properties and pecuniary resources disproportionate to the known sources of the MLA's income to the extent of Rs. 6,47,34,599/= The final report was filed in the court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai. The First Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court Judge) who was in full additional charge of the Principal Sessions Judge, transferred the case C.C. No. 2 of 2004 to the Corut of the IV Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, who issued summons dated 16.9.2004 to A.1 and A.2. The said issue of summons by the IV Additional Sesssions Judge is challenged among various other factual aspects by two questions of law by the petitioners. They are: (i) the permission as required under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act has not been validly granted, since the Speaker of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly is not the person who can grant such permission for prosecution of the MLA; and (ii) the IV Additional Sessions Judge/Special Court is not the competent court to take cognizance of the offence since the transfer to the said court was made by the First Additional Sessions Judge, who had no power to transfer the said case to the IV Additional Sessions Judge.