Legally Bharat

Madras High Court

Pramod Kumar vs State on 23 November, 2023

                                                                    Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS




                                          Reserved on          26.04.2024
                                         Delivered on          07.06.2024

                                                        CORAM

                             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH


                                        Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 & 2195 of 2023
                                                      and
                                       Crl.M.P.Nos.19769 & 19772 of 2023


                     Pramod Kumar                          ... Petitioner in both Revisions


                                                         Vs.

                     State, CBI,
                     The Additional Superintendent of Police,
                     CBI, E.O.W., Shastri Bhavan,
                     Chennai.                          ... Respondent in both Revisions



                     PRAYER IN CRL.R.C.No.2194 of 2023:                     Criminal Revision
                     Petition filed under Section 397 r/w.401 of Criminal Procedure Code,
                     1973, to set aside the order dated 23.11.2023 passed by the
                     learned II Additional District Judge for CBI Cases, Coimbatore in
                     Crl.M.P.No.1527 of 2023 in C.C. No.2 of 2013.


                     PRAYER IN CRL.R.C.No.2195 of 2023:                     Criminal Revision
                     Petition filed under Section 397 r/w.401 of Criminal Procedure Code,


                     1/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                     Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

                     1973, to set aside the order dated 28.11.2023 passed by the
                     learned II Additional District Judge for CBI Cases, Coimbatore in
                     C.C. No.2 of 2023 wherein charges were framed against the
                     petitioner and consequently discharge the petitioner/first accused
                     from all offences charged in the Charge Sheet dated 28.11.2013 in
                     C.C.No.2 of 2013 pending on the file of the learned II Additional
                     District Judge for CBI Cases, Coimbatore.


                                       For Petitioner     : Mr.C.Mani Shankar
                                                            Senior Counsel
                                                            for Mr.Arun C Mohan
                                                            in Crl.R.C.No.2194 of 2023
                                                            Mr.A.Ramesh
                                                            Senior Counsel
                                                            for Mr.Arun C Mohan
                                                            in Crl.R.C.No.2195 of 2023



                                        For Respondent    : Mr.R.Sankara Narayanan
                                                            Senior Counsel
                                                            Special Counsel for CBI
                                                                      &
                                                            Mr. K.Srinivasan
                                                            Senior Counsel
                                                            Special Public Prosecutor for CBI
                                                            Assisted by Ms.Vrinda Ramesh
                                                            (in both petitions)



                                                COMMON       ORDER


Challenging the order passed by the learned II Additional

District Judge for CBI Cases, Coimbatore in Crl.M.P.No.1527 of 2023

2/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

in C.C. No.2 of 2013 dated 23.11.2023 and as against the charges

framed against the petitioner herein through his order dated

28.11.2013, the present Criminal Revision Petitions have been filed

by the petitioner herein/first accused.

2.The gist and kernel of the case which leads to the filing of

these revision petitions are as follows:

i)The petitioner in both the Criminal Revision Cases is the first

accused in RC ME1 2001 E 0013 registered by the respondent police

against him along with the other named accused persons for the

alleged offences under Sections 120-B r/w 347, 384, 506 (i) of IPC

and Sections 8, 10 and 13 (2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988. After completion of investigation, the same

was taken cognizance by the learned II Additional District Judge for

CBI Cases, Coimbatore in C.C.No.2 of 2013.

ii)The petitioner is a member of the Indian Police Service,

allotted to the State of Tamil Nadu. While he was functioning as

Inspector General of Police, West Zone, based at Coimbatore, a

complaint was registered in Crime No.26 of 2009 by the Central

Crime Branch (CCB) Tiruppur, against the Directors of Paazee Forex

3/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

Trading India Ltd., under the provisions of Prize Chits and Monies

Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 and Section 420 of IPC.

Subsequently, Tiruppur North Police registered a case in Cr.No.3068

of 2009 for “Woman Missing” pursuant to a complaint that

Mrs.Komalavalli Arumugham, one of the Directors of Paazee Forex

Trading India Ltd., was found missing.

iii)Since police failed to take any action against the Directors of

Paazee Forex Trading India Ltd., inspite of cancellation of the

anticipatory bail to them, one of the depositors and the association

of depositors of Paazee Forex Trading India Ltd., moved this Court

in Crl.O.P.Nos.2691 and 5358 of 2011 with a prayer for transfer of

investigation from the State Police to Central Bureau of

Investigation (CBI). The petitioner was not an accused at that point

of time. This Court has passed an order dated 19.04.2011

transferring the investigation of both the crimes from the State

Police to CBI.

iv)In the meanwhile, the petitioner herein was interrogated in

connection with Crime No.3068 of 2009 on 06.04.2011 and on

investigation, it was found that he abused his official position as

4/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

Inspector General of Police and inter-alia was involved in extorting

money from the Directors of M/s Paazee Forex. This Court by an

order dated 19.04.2011, transferred the investigation in Crime No.3

of 2010 (originally Crime No.26 of 2009) to CBI. Thereafter, the

petitioner had filed an application for bail, which was rejected by

this Court on 20.04.2012 and was arrested. The Principal Secretary

to Government of Tamil Nadu by an order dated 10.05.2012 placed

the petitioner under suspension with effect from 02.04.2012 in

terms of Sub Rule 2 of Rule 3 of the All India Service (Discipline and

Appeal) Rules, 1969, until further orders.

v)Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition in

W.P.No.21801 of 2012 before this Court forbearing the respondents

from proceeding further with conducting enquiry or investigation in

FIR in RC No.13(E)/2011/CBI/EOW/Chennai and the same was

dismissed by this Court. In the meanwhile, the decision to initiate a

disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner was approved by the

Disciplinary Authority on 05.04.2013. Pursuant to which, a charge

memo was issued to him on 29.10.2013. This Court by an order

dated 19.04.2011 in Crl.O.P.Nos.2691 of 2011 and 5356 of 2011

had transferred the investigation in Crime No.26 of 2009 and Crime

5/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

No.3068 of 2009 to CBI, which was challenged before the Hon’ble

Supreme Court by way of SLP and the same was disposed of and

this Court also clarified in the order dated 19.04.2011 that it will not

stand in the way of the petitioner herein while disposing of the

matter afresh.

vi) The petitioner filed O.A.No.165 of 2016 before the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, for quashing the order of

suspension dated 10.05.2013 and the charge memo dated

29.10.2013 and also sought for reinstatement with all consequential

benefits. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench,

refused to interfere with the charge memo, however, directed

revocation of suspension by holding that there was no material to

indicate that the petitioner had tampered with the evidence and

influenced the witnesses. Aggrieved by the direction issued by the

Central Administrative Tribunal to reinstate the petitioner, the State

of Tamil Nadu filed a Writ Petition before this Court. This Court by a

judgment dated 12.01.2017, upheld the judgment of the Tribunal

pertaining to revocation of suspension. Further, this Court quashed

the disciplinary proceedings on the ground that the charge memo

was not approved by the disciplinary authority. Against the same,

6/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

the State of Tamil Nadu had filed a Civil Appeal before the Hon’ble

Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court by relying on the

decision of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India reported

in (2015) 7 SCC 291 and on the basis of the material available on

record, convinced that no useful purpose would be served by

continuing the petitioner under suspension any longer and that his

reinstatement would not be a threat to a fair trial and also

reiterated the observation of this Court that the State has the

liberty to appoint the petitioner in a non sensitive post. By an order

dated 02.11.2021, in a batch of Writ Petitions and Criminal Original

Petitions, this Court had finally dismissed all the petitions preferred

by the petitioner herein, as well as by the other accused. As against

the dismissal order, the petitioner had preferred SLP before the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP.No.8901-8904/2021 and the Hon’ble

Supreme Court had dismissed the SLP with liberty to the petitioner

to raise all the grounds raised therein before the appropriate Court,

if and when the charges are framed against the petitioner.

vii)Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred Crl.M.P.No.1527 of

2023 seeking discharge from the proceedings in C.C.No.2 of 2013

and the trial Court has dismissed the discharge petition on

7/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

23.11.2023. Pursuant to which, charges were framed against the

petitioner on 28.11.2023. Aggrieved over the said orders, the

petitioner has filed the present revisions before this Court. This

Court by an order dated 20.12.2023 granted interim stay of all

further proceedings in C.C.No.2 of 2013 till 11.03.2024 and also

personal appearance of the petitioner has been dispensed with.

3.Heard Mr.A.Ramesh and Mr.C.Manishankar, learned Senior

Counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.2194 of

2023 and Crl.R.C.No.2195 of 2023 respectively as well as

Mr.R.Sankaranarayanan, learned Senior counsel and

Mr.K.Srinivasan, learned Special Public Prosecuor appearing for the

respondent/CBI.

4.Since the issue involved in these revisions are one and the

same, a common order is being passed in these Criminal Revision

Petitions.

5.Arguments made on behalf of the petitioner:

5.1. Mr.A.Ramesh, learned Senior counsel in

Crl.R.C.No.2195 of 2023 submitted that the Directors of Paazee

8/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

Forex Trading Pvt. Ltd., [for the sake of brevity, hereinafter referred

to as “Paazee Trading”] collected deposits in the form of ponzi

scheme from the public and failed to repay the amount to the

depositors and thereby committed a huge scam. A complaint was

filed in this regard and on a direction of this Court, a Committee

was established to oversee that the amount has been refunded to

the depositors by the Directors of Pazee Trading. However, certain

depositors, who were dissatisfied with the progress of investigation,

approached this Court by way of filing petitions seeking transfer of

investigation from the State Police to CBI in Crl.O.P.Nos.2691 and

5336 of 2011.

5.2. At this juncture, it was stated by the State that along

with Crime No.26 of 2009 (Paazee case), another FIR was filed

relating to this case which was originally registered as a “woman

missing case”, who was one of the directors of Paazee Trading and

on investigation, it came to light that it was “kidnapping and

extortion case” involving police officers investigating the Paazee

scam. In view of the same, this Court by its order dated 19.04.2011

in Crl.O.P.Nos.2691 and 5336 of 2011 directed transfer of

investigation of both Crime No.26 of 2009 (Paazee Case) and Crime

9/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

No.3068 of 2009 (Woman Missing Case) to the CBI. CBI had taken

over the woman missing case from CBCID, Vellore which was the

then investigating agency and thereafter registered an FIR wherein

the petitioner herein was arrayed as A6. It is pertinent to note that

until CBI’s FIR dated 15.06.2011, the petitioner herein was no way

connected or investigated in the woman missing case until the

matter was transferred and taken up by CBI.

5.3. The respondent had filed the charge sheet on 13.05.2013

before the learned II Additional District Judge for CBI Cases,

Coimbatore and in the meantime, the petitioner herein had initiated

proceedings to challenge investigation against him without

according sanction for investigation as contemplated under Section

6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act. When the

matter was taken up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal

No.3062 of 2015, the Court by order dated 17.03.2015 had set

aside and remanded back the matter to this Court and had also

directed to remand of Crl.O.P.Nos.2691 and 5336 of 2011 since the

petitioner was not made a party or heard therein.

10/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

5.4. This Court heard the matters afresh and vide its order

dated 02.11.2021 was pleased to uphold the transfer of

investigation and directed the trial Court to proceed in the manner

known to law. The petitioner preferred a quash petition in

Crl.O.P.No.19442 of 2022 which was subsequently dismissed on

28.11.2023 and in the interim, when the petitioner was directed to

appear before the learned trial Court as Non Bailable Warrant

issued, he preferred a discharge petition which was dismissed on

23.11.2023. Aggrieved over the same, Crl.R.C.No.2194 of 2023 has

been filed and also that the petitioner has preferred

Crl.R.C.No.2195 of 2023 as against the framing of charges dated

28.11.2023.

5.5. It is strenuously contended by the learned Senior counsel

for the petitioner that the bare perusal of the charges framed

against the petitioner vide order dated 28.11.2023 would show that

the same are defective, vague and ought to be set aside as the

same are not comprehendible and would result in great prejudice to

the petitioner. On a perusal of the first charge framed against

the petitioner for the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section

11/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

120-B IPC would reveal that the same runs to about 14 pages by

enunciating various facts, dates and time and particularly, in

various places when the said charge is read out, the same is

incomprehensible. It is vital to point out that the first charge

running to 14 pages has various material facts not concerning to

the petitioner but concerning other accused in the case, however all

being put together as one, has rendered the charges meaningless

and groundless. In respect of the charges 4, 7 and 8, the trail

Court has conveniently charged the petitioner for the said offence

therein for his actions committed in the date, time and place as

mentioned in the first charge. The fourth charge is without any

basic details pointing to the first charge with regard to time, place

etc. The first charge has more than 25 dates and 3 different places

viz., Coimbatore, Tiruppur and Chennai. The charge for 506(i) IPC

should mention threat to cause death or grievous hurt or with an

intent to cause alarm, which is absent in the present charge.

Seventh charge for Section 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act

(PC Act) does not specify the offence for framing charges against

the petitioner. Since Section 10 of the PC Act requires Section 8 or

9 to be committed as a pre-requisite, which is absent in the present

case as against the petitioner.

12/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

5.6. The learned Senior counsel referred to Section 464 of

Cr.P.C., and the same reads as follows:

464. Effect of omission to frame, or
absence of, or error in, charge-

1)No finding sentence or order by a Court
of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid
merely on the ground that no charge was framed
or on the ground of any error, omission or
irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder
of charge, unless, in the opinion of the Court of
appeal, confirmation or revision, a failure of
justice has in fact been occasioned thereby.

2)If the Court of appeal, confirmation or
revision is of opinion that a failure of justice has
in fact been occasioned, it may-

(a)in the case of an omission to frame a
charge, order that a charge be framed and that
the trial be recommenced from the point
immediately after the framing of the charge;

(b)in the case of an error, omission or
irregularity in the charge, direct a new trial to be
had upon a charge framed in whatever manner it
thinks fit:

Provided that if the Court is of opinion that
the facts of the case are such that no valid
charge could be preferred against the accused in
respect of the facts proved, it shall quash the

13/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

conviction.

5.7. In the present case on hand, Section 464 of Cr.P.C., has

not been followed and submitted that it is the duty of the Court to

step in when there is an error in framing a charge and set aside the

same for want of fresh charges to be framed as not being so would

gravely prejudice the petitioner at the time of trial.

5.8. He placed reliance on Chapter 17 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, more specifically on Sections 211 to 215, wherein

contents of a charge and the manner in which the same ought to

have been framed and the effect of an error in a charge are

illustrated. For useful reference, Sections 211 to 215 of Cr.P.C.,

have been extracted and the same reads as follows:

211.Contents of charge.—
(1) Every charge under this Code shall
state the offence with which the accused is
charged.

(2) If the law which creates the offence
gives it any specific name, the offence may be
described in the charge by that name only.

(3) If the law which creates the offence
does not give it any specific name, so much of

14/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

the definition of the offence must be stated as to
give the accused notice of the matter with which
he is charged.

(4) The law and section of the law against
which the offence is said to have been
committed shall be mentioned in the charge.

(5) The fact that the charge is made is
equivalent to a statement that every legal
condition required by law to constitute the
offence charged was fulfilled in the particular
case.

(6) The charge shall be written in the
language of the Court. (7) If the accused,
having been previously convicted of any offence,
is liable, by reason of such previous conviction,
to enhanced punishment, or to punishment of a
different kind, for a subsequent offence, and it is
intended to prove such previous conviction for
the purpose of affecting the punishment which
the Court may think fit to award for the
subsequent offence, the fact, date and place of
the previous conviction shall be stated in the
charge; and if such statement has been omitted,
the Court may add it at any time before
sentence is passed.

212.Particular as to time, place and
person.—
(1) The charge shall contain such

15/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

particulars as to the time and place of the
alleged offence, and the person (if any) against
whom, or the thing (if any) in respect of which,
it was committed, as are reasonably sufficient to
give the accused notice of the matter with which
he is charged.

(2) When the accused is charged with
criminal breach of trust or dishonest
misappropriation of money or other movable
property, it shall be sufficient to specify the
gross sum or, as the case may be, describe the
movable property in respect of which the offence
is alleged to have been committed, and the
dates between which the offence is alleged to
have been committed, without specifying
particular items or exact dates, and the charge
so framed shall be deemed to be a charge of one
offence within the meaning of section 219:

Provided that the time included between
the first and last of such dates shall not exceed
one year.

213. When manner of committing offence
must be stated.—When the nature of the case is
such that the particulars mentioned in sections
211 and 212 do not give the accused sufficient
notice of the matter with which he is charged,
the charge shall also contain such particulars of
the manner in which the alleged offence was

16/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

committed as will be sufficient for that purpose.

214. Words in charge taken in sense of law
under which offence is punishable.—In every
charge words used in describing an offence shall
be deemed to have been used in the sense
attached to them respectively by the law under
which such offence is punishable.

215. Effect of errors.— No error in stating
either the offence or the particulars required to
be stated in the charge, and no omission to state
the offence or those particulars, shall be
regarded at any stage of the case as material,
unless the accused was in fact misled by such
error or omission, and it has occasioned a failure
of justice.

5.9. A cursory reading of the charges framed as against the

petitioner would show that none of the provisions as enumerated

above foreshadow the charges so framed thereby making the

charges wholly erroneous and thus, the learned Senior counsel

prayed to set aside the charges framed as against the petitioner.

5.10. In support of his contentions, the learned Senior

counsel drew the attention of this Court by placing reliance on the

following judgments:

17/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

a)Krishnan Balakrishnan and Others Vs. State of Kerala,

1957 SCC Online Ker 215:-

7.Now, as we have already said, the charge
against each of the accused is a long rambling
document cluttered with irrelevant detail telling
him not merely what he himself but also what the
other accused persons did in the course of the
transaction, but at the same time failing to tell
him and it is here that the objection lies of the
matters making out the offences with which he
was eventually convicted. Taking first the charge
against the first accused, it is no doubt true that
Section 302 IPC is mentioned in charge in
addition to Section 302-149 IPC, but nowhere in
the charge is it said that the first accused was
being held liable for having himself caused that
death of the deceased.

b)Pitambar Dehury and Others Vs. State of Orissa, 1984

SCC Online Ori 226

“12.We would now examine the
correctness of the second submission of the
learned Counsel for the appellants. The Supreme
Court and various High Courts have considered
as to the effect of absence of a charge or defect
in charge how far vitiates the conviction. In one

18/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

of the earliest cases (Willie (William) Slaney v.
State of Madhya Pradesh), it was held :

Sections 34, 114 and 149 of the Penal
Code provide for criminal liability viewed from
different angles as regards actual participants,
accessories and men actuated by a common
object or a common intention ; ‘and the charge
is a rolled-up one involving the direct liability’
without specifying who are directly liable and
who are sought to be made constructively liable.

In such a situation, the absence of a
charge under one or other of the various heads
of criminal liability for the offence cannot be said
to be fatal by itself, and before a conviction for
the substantive offence, without a charge, can be
set aside, prejudice will have to be made out. In
most of the cases of this kind, evidence is
normally given from the outset as to who was
primarily responsible for the act which brought
about the offence and such evidence is of course
relevant.

13.In this case in the majority judgment,
their Lordships explained and distinguished the
two earlier decisions of the Court (Nanakchand v.
State of Punjab) and (Surajpal v. State of U.P.).

14.In the case of K.C. Mathew v. State of
Travancore-Cochin , repelling a contention raised
on behalf of the accused that they have been

19/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

prejudiced for non-framing of a charge, the
Supreme Court held :

We are satisfied that the charge neither
caused, nor could have caused, prejudice. The
body of the charge set out the fact that the
accused 1-29 formed an unlawful assembly and
stated the common object ; and then the charge
specified in detail the part that each accused had
played. In the circumstances, each accused was
in a position to know just that was charged
against him because once the facts are
enumerated the law that applies to them can
easily be ascertained ; and in this particular case
it was just a matter of picking out the relevant
sections from among the ten mentioned.

There is nothing in this objection :….
In the very same judgment, the Court also
further observed :

“… but the fact that the objection was not
taken at an earlier stage, if it could and should
have been taken, is a material circumstance that
will necessarily weigh heavily against the
accused particularly when he has been
represented by counsel throughout…”

16.In the case of Khemasil Rout v. State of
Orissa (1974) 40 Cut LT 428, a learned Judge of
this Court examined the provisions of Sections
143 and 149 of the Penal Code and held :

20/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

“The law is well settled that the only test to
decide whether a conviction can be sustained or
not is to find out whether the absence of such a
charge has resulted in prejudice to the accused
persons. Here, in this case, there was a specific
charge Under Section 148, Indian Penal Code.
The common object also has been specified. The
petitioners therefore cannot complain that they
had no notice of the ingredients of the offence
Under Section 149, Indian Penal Code. No
prejudice has therefore resulted to the accused-
petitioners. …”

c) Selvam and Others Vs. State, Crl.A.(MD) No.234 of
2011 dated 18.08.2015:-

“16. With pains, thus for, we have
discussed about the irregularities in the charges
framed and the consequential trial conducted by
the trial Court. Time and again, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court as well as this Court have been
impressing upon the need for the trial Court to
have thorough study of the entire Police report
and all the documents filed therewith and to
frame appropriate charges so ass to avoid any
failure of justice. The law makers have made it
mandatory that under Section 218 Cr.P.C. for
every distinct offence of which a person is
accused, there shall be a separate charge. The

21/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

law makers have also made a provision under
Section 226 Cr.P.C. that in a trial before a Court
of Sessions, the Public Prosecutor shall open his
case by describing the charge brought against
the accused and stating by what evidence he
proposes to prove the guilt of the accused. In
practice, often we have come to know that this
provision is followed only in breach. This case is
a classic illustration of failure of justice as the
accused have walked away with punishment for
simple murder, though there were three brutal
murders.

17. We regret to say that in our experience,
in many cases, which have come up before this
Court in the recent past, we have noticed that
because the cases were not properly opened by
the prosecutors, because the prosecutors had
not described the charges brought against the
accused; and because the trial Courts also had
not bestowed their required attention, there
were defective charges framed which, ultimately,
in some cases, resulted in failure of justice as
well. In some cases, because of the defects in
the charges, the accused have cakewalk on
account of the said loopholes in the charges. In
some cases, this Court had to often remand the
case after many years, for altering the charges
properly and to pass fresh judgment. This sordid

22/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

stated of affairs has not vanished.

18.Judicial training has almost become a
part of the service of the Judges, in this State.

On the important subjects, often training is
imparted to the Judges by the Tamil Nadu State
Judicial Academy run by this Court and by the
National Judicial Academy, through eminent
jurists drawn from across the country. We are
told that even the Public Prosecutors are also
trained at the cost of the Government. Despite
these efforts, it is really distressing that we have
noticed a lot of defects in the matter of framing
of charges as we have seen in the instant case
which have, at times, paved the way for the real
culprits to escape from the clutches of law. We
would like to remind the Judicial Officers that
gross failure to bestow attention and to frame
appropriate charges resulting in failure of justice
and paving the way for the accused to escape
from the clutches of law may amount to a
dereliction of official duty by the officers. In this
scenario,we, once again, wish to reiterate that
Judges and Magistrates, presiding over the
Criminal Courts, shall bestow their best attention
in the matter of framing of charges as framing of
charges is not a ministerial job but a very serious
judicial function.

19. As there were defects in the charges,

23/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

equally in this case, there were defects in the
trial also, as the trial was not conducted with
best attention by the learned Public Prosecutor,
who was in charge of the case. In many cases,
this Court has pointed out that the trial had not
been conducted with proper care and attention,
resulting in acquittal of the accused, though
during the investigation sufficient materials had
been collected by the investigating officers. Very
recently, one of us (Justice S.NAGAMUTHU)
sitting single in Crl.A.No.67 of 2015
(Navaneethakrishnan and another Vs. Inspector
of Police, Q Branch Police Station, Madurai),
relating to a very sensational case involving the
security of the nation, found such serious
irregularities in the charges and the serious
errors committed at the time of trial by failing to
bring on record the evidences collected during
the investigation. In that case, the conviction
was set aside and the matter was remanded to
the trial Court for fresh disposal (vide judgment
dated 24.07.2015). This is only an illustration.
The case on hand is the next illustration. We do
not want to cite many more cases as, in our
considered view, it would only add to the length
of this judgment. We only wish to impress upon
the Government to ensure the competence of the
Public Prosecutors in conducting criminal trials,

24/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

while making appointments and also impart
them legal training on periodical basis. This will
surely improve the quality of the Prosecutors in
this State and consequently, improve the quality
of the criminal judicial administration in the
State.

d)Parthiban and Others Vs. State, Crl.A.No.349, 353,

392, 419, 439, 449 and 495 of 2016 dated 23.08.2016:-

16. Before analyzing the arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for both sides
and the evidences available on record, let us, at
the outset, record our displeasure about the
manner in which the charges have been framed,
in this case, and the manner in which the trial
court has convicted these 14 accused for various
offences.

17. Time and again, this Court and the
Hon’ble Supreme Court have been impressing
upon the trial courts, the importance of charges
framed, because the accused are liable to answer
the charges framed against them and framing of
appropriate charges alone would put the accused
on notice, the allegations against him, so that,
he could face the same effectively. In other

25/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

words, framing of appropriate charges would be
part of fair trial afforded to the accused.

18. Section 211 of the Criminal Procedure
Code contemplates the contents of the charges.

The provisions that followed in Chapter XVII
elaborately deal with the form of charges and
more specifically, Section 215 of the Code, deals
with effects of errors in charges. But it is not
infrequent that this Court comes across cases,
which reflect the indifference on the part of the
trial courts, in the matter of bestowing attention
to frame appropriate charges. The present case
is a classic example of such indifference. As we
have pointed out in paragraph No.1 of this
judgment, though it is alleged that 14 accused
had assembled, all armed with wooden logs, with
a common object of killing the deceased, the trial
court has not framed appropriate charges.

19. As we have pointed out, as against all
the 14 accused, the trial court has framed
charges under Section 147 IPC as well as 148
IPC. Since all the 14 accused were armed with
dangerous weapons, the trial court ought to have
framed charges against all the accused under
Section 148 IPC, but, quite, strangely, the trial
court has convicted and imposed sentence for
offence under Section 148 as well as 147 IPC.
This will amount to clear double jeopardy. It is

26/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

common knowledge that once an accused is
convicted for the offence under Section 148 IPC,
he cannot be again punished for the offence
under Section 147 IPC.

5.11. Furthermore, it is pertinent to go through the charge

sheet as the prosecution even while filing the same after allegedly

investigating the issue, has left open the question of money trial to

further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. This would

only show that the prosecution has hastily filed the charge sheet

without completing the investigation and reiterate the prosecution’s

mala-fide intention to somehow roped the petitioner. The trial

Court failed to apply its mind at the time of taking cognizance of the

matter. As per the prosecution’s status report before the trial court

dated 17.10.2023 further investigation is still ongoing and money

trial is yet to be established.

5.12. The learned Senior counsel argued that the charges

framed are made as even assuming without admitting that there

are grounds to proceed for framing charges, the exercise

undertaken by the trial Court in framing charges in a case where

there are no grounds to proceed, is unsustainable and the same is

27/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

liable to be set aside.

5.13. He also submitted that the defects as raised and argued

above are incurable, since on a joint consideration of the errors

made in the impugned discharge order and the impugned charges

framed, the same would vitiate the entire proceedings as against

the petitioner.

5.14. Mr.C.Manishankar, learned Senior counsel in

Crl.R.C.No.2194 of 2023 submitted that the petitioner was under

custody between 02.05.2012 and 28.06.2012 and subsequently was

granted bail by order dated 28.06.2012. The learned Senior counsel

drew the notice of this Court that bail was granted by this Court in

Crl.O.P.No.12056 of 2012 by order dated 28.06.2012, on the

ground that Ms.Kamalavalli (L.W.2) had constantly changed her

statement before the investigating agency which raised a question

to her credibility.

5.15. At this juncture, the learned Senior counsel also pointed

out that the character of L.W.2/Ms.Kamalavalli is to mislead Courts

and investigation agencies. In the present case, a woman missing

28/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

case turned into an extortion and kidnapping case, since L.W.2 had

made such a statement when she was initially investigated on

14.02.2010. Moreover, she was not kidnapped and the story was

concocted in her statements under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C., dated

13.03.2010 and 23.08.2011, are merely an evasion from her duty

to refund the depositors in the Paazee Trading scam and to take

revenge on the police officers, who investigated her for the same.

5.16. On 11.08.2022, a petition to quash the proceedings in

C.C.No.2 of 2013 was filed before this Court and an order of

dispensing with the personal appearance of the petitioner was

granted. On 04.09.2022, this Court vide an order in

Crl.M.P.No.13402 of 2023 in Crl.O.P.No.24216 of 2018, directed the

trial Court to fix a schedule and proceed with the matter if there is

no other legal impediment. It is relevant to point out that the

petitioner herein was not a party therein. On 25.10.2023, the trial

Court issued a non bailable warrant against the petitioner for his

non appearance and further dismissed the petition under Section

309 Cr.P.C., filed by the petitioner.

5.17. Subsequent to the issuance of a non bailable warrant

29/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

against the petitioner, he appeared before the trial Court and the

same was recalled on 27.10.2023. At this point of time, the

petitioner had also filed the petition to discharge in Crl.M.P.No.1527

of 2023. However, the petitioner was directed to appear before the

trial Court on 04.11.2023 for framing of charges even before

hearing the discharge petition filed by the petitioner. It is

submitted that the petitioner moved Crl.O.P.No.25507 of 2023

against the dismissal of 309 petition and interim protection from

appearance before the trial Court was granted by this Court vide its

order dated 03.11.2023. However, on 06.11.2023,

Crl.O.P.No.25507 of 2023 was disposed of with the direction to the

petitioner to appear for framing charges and 313 questioning. On

23.11.2023, the Discharge Petition in Crl.M.P.No.1527 of 2023 was

dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved over the same, the instant

revision in Crl.R.C.2194 of 2023 has been preferred by the

petitioner.

5.18. The trial Court in its order dated 23.11.2023 placed

reliance on the order of this Court in Crl.O.P.Nos.2691 & 5356 of

2011, wherein this Court has transferred the case from CBCID to

CBI. It is further submitted that the said order of this Court dated

30/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

19.04.2011 was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and

the Hon’ble Supreme Court by its order dated 17.03.2015 was

pleased to set aside the same and remanded the matter back to this

Court, with a direction to hear the petitioner before passing orders.

5.19. The learned Senior counsel highlighted the order of the

trial Court, wherein the trial Court being influenced by the order of

this Court dated 19.04.2011 had extracted the same in para 7.7 of

its order, even though it was set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court. He therefore submitted that the trial Court ought not to have

placed reliance on the order of this Court in Crl.O.P.Nos.2691 &

5356 of 2011 and for this reason alone, the order of dismissing the

discharge petition by the trial Court is liable to be set aside.

5.20. In para 7.10 of the impugned order of the trial Court

dated 23.11.2023, it specifically referred and extracted the common

order of this Court dated 02.11.2021 which reveals the fact that the

trial Court has been influenced by the same. Inspite of the

observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order dated

19.07.2022 in SLP (Crl.) Nos.8901 to 8904 of 2021, wherein it has

held that the common order of this Court dated 02.11.2021 being a

31/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

prima facie observation is not to weigh in the minds of the trial

Court when proceedings are brought before it, the learned Judge of

the trial Court merely followed the order dated 02.11.2021 which is

contrary. Hence he submitted that the trial Court had passed the

order without application of mind and disregard to the grounds

raised seeking dismissal of discharge.

5.21. Continuing his argument, the learned Senior counsel

raised the following points for consideration of the revision

petitions:

5.21.1) Sanction for prosecution granted under Section 19(2)

of the PC Act and Section 197(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., suffers from severe

non application of mind as even a prima facie reading of the charge

sheet would show that no case under the offences are made out as

against the petitioner.

5.21.2) Section 8 and 10 of PC Act reads as follows:

8.Offence relating to bribing of a
public servant.

(1)Any person who gives or promises to
give an undue advantage to another person or
persons, with intention-

32/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

i)to induce a public servant to perform
improperly a public duty; or

ii)to reward such public servant for the
improper performance of public duty; shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to seven years or with fine or with
both:

Provided that the provisions of this section
shall not apply where a person is compelled to
give such undue advantage:

Provided further that the person so
compelled shall report the matter to the law
enforcement authority or investigating agency
within a period of seven days from the date of
giving such undue advantage:

Provided also that when the offence under
this section has been committed by commercial
organisation, such commercial organisation shall
be punishable with fine.

Illustration. – A person, ‘P’ gives a public
servant, ‘S’ an amount of ten thousand rupees to
ensure that he is granted a license, over all the
other bidders. ‘P’ is guilty of an offence under
this sub-section.

                                          Explanation.   -    It    shall     be     immaterial
                                  whether     the    person        to   whom        an     undue

advantage is given or promised to be given is the
same person as the person who is to perform, or

33/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

has performed, the public duty concerned and it
shall also be immaterial whether such undue
advantage is given or promised to be given by
the person directly or through a third party.

2)Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to
a person, if that person, after informing a law
enforcement authority or investigating agency,
gives or promises to give any undue advantage
to another person in order to assist such law
enforcement authority or investigating agency in
its investigation of the offence alleged against
the later.

10.Person in charge of commercial
organisation to be guilty of offence.

Where an offence under section 9 is
committed by a commercial organisation, and
such offence is proved in the court to have been
committed with the consent or connivance of any
director, manager, secretary or other officer shall
be of the commercial organisation, such director,
manager, secretary or other officer shall be guilty
of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded
against and shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less
than three years but which may extend to seven
years and shall also be liable to fine.

34/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

Explanation. – For the purposes of this
section, “director”, in relation to a firm means a
partner in the firm.

5.21.3) A mere reading of Section 8 of PC Act, 1988 would

show that it can only be attracted to private persons and not public

servants. In the instant case, there is nothing in the charge sheet or

witnesses statements to show that A4 and A5 were ever in contact

with the petitioner. It is relevant to note that A4 and A5 have an

effect on the petitioner to abuse his power is nowhere to be found

in the charge sheet or accompanying documents.

5.21.4) Section 10 of PC Act shall not be charged against the

petitioner as Section 10 is punishment for abetting an offence under

Section 8. The prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie

nexus between A1 and the private persons A4 and A5 and

therefore, Section 8 and 10 of PC Act, would not attract. When the

materials were placed before the Sanctioning Authority, the

authority ought to have considered the same and applied their

mind prior to issuing sanction for prosecution. The same would

apply even to the sanction granted under Section 197 Cr.P.C., since

no ingredients of Sections 347, 384 or the other offences charged

35/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

under, have been made out. It is also admitted by the prosecution

that there is no money trail. It is therefore submitted that there is

a severe lack of application of mind by the Sanctioning Authority.

5.21.5) The learned Senior counsel contended that sanction

granted for the offences under IPC, even though the prosecution

has admitted the fact that no money trail could be established, the

sanctioning authority has not applied his mind prior to granting

sanction to prosecute the petitioner. Sanction ought not to have

been granted by the authority as the requisite of an illegal gain as

mandated under the statute for Sections 347 and 384 has not been

made out as against the petitioner. This also applies to the

sanctioning authority, who has granted sanction under the PC Act

wherein sanction granted for Section 13(1)(d) has no requisite

material for a prima facie case of demand and acceptance.

5.22. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior

counsel placed reliance on the following decisions:

a) Nanjappa Vs. State of Karnataka [2015 (14) SCC

186]

22.The legal position regarding the

36/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

importance of sanction under Section 19 of the
Prevention of Corruption is thus much too clear
to admit equivocation. The statute forbids taking
of cognizance by the Court against a public
servant except with the previous sanction of an
authority competent to grant such sanction in
terms of clauses (a), (b) and (c) to Section
19(1). The question regarding validity of such
sanction can be raised at any stage of the
proceedings. The competence of the court trying
the accused so much depends upon the
existence of a valid sanction. In case the
sanction is found to be invalid the court can
discharge the accused relegating the parties to a
stage where the competent authority may grant
a fresh sanction for prosecution in accordance
with law. If the trial Court proceeds, despite the
invalidity attached to the sanction order, the
same shall be deemed to be non-est in the eyes
of law and shall not forbid a second trial for the
same offences, upon grant of a valid sanction for
such prosecution.

b) Dinesh Kumar Vs. Chairman, Airport Authority of

India [2012 (1) SCC 532]

10.In our view, invalidity of sanction
where sanction order exists, can be raised on

37/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

diverse grounds like non-availability of material
before the sanctioning authority or bias of the
sanctioning authority or the order of sanction
having been passed by an authority not
authorised or competent to grant such sanction.
The above grounds are only illustrative and not
exhaustive. All such grounds of invalidity or
illegality of sanction would fall in the same
category like the ground of invalidity of sanction
on account of non-application of mind – a
category carved out by this Court in Parkash
Singh Badal, the challenge to which can always
be raised in the course of trial.

c) Suresh Budharmal Kalani Vs. State of Maharashtra

[1998 (7) SCC 337]

7.So far as the confession of Jayawant
Suryarao is concerned, the same (if voluntary
and true) can undoubtedly be brought on record
under Section 30 of the Evidence Act to use it
also against Kalani but then the question is what
would be its evidentiary value against the latter.
The question was succinctly answered by this
Court in Kashmira Singh V. State of Madhya
Pradesh (1952 SCR 526) with the following
words:

“The proper way to approach a case of this

38/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

kind is first, to marshal the evidence against the
accused excluding the confession altogether from
consideration and see whether, if it is believed, a
conviction could safely be based on it. If it is
capable of belief independently of the confession,
then of course it is not necessary to call the
confession in aid. But cases may arise where the
judge is not prepared to act on the other
evidence as it sands even though if believed, it
would be sufficient to sustain a conviction. In aid
the confession and use it to lend assurance to
the other evidence and thus fortify himself in
believing what without the aid of the confession
he would not be prepared to accept.”

The view so expressed has been
consistently followed by this Court. Judged in the
light of the above principle the confession of
Suryarao cannot called in aid to frame charges
against Kalani in absence of any other evidence
to do so.

……

10. A bare perusal of the above statement
makes it abundantly clear that it is self
exculpatory and hence inadmissible in evidence
as ‘ confession’. Once it is left out of
consideration – as it should be – the confessional

39/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

statements of the other three accused, for what
they are worth, cannot be made – in absence of
any other material to connect Dr. Desai with the
accusation levelled against him a basis for
impugned charges in view of the law laid down
in Kashmira singh (supra).

d) P.Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. District Inspector of

Police [2015 (10) SCC 152]

20.This Court in A. Subair vs. State of
Kerala (2009)6 SCC 587, while dwelling on the
purport of the statutory prescription of Sections
7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act ruled that the
prosecution has to prove the charge thereunder
beyond reasonable doubt like any other criminal
offence and that the accused should be
considered to be innocent till it is established
otherwise by proper proof of demand and
acceptance of illegal gratification, which are vital
ingredients necessary to be proved to record a
conviction.

21. In State of Kerala and another vs. C.P.
Rao (2011) 6 SCC 450, this Court, reiterating its
earlier dictum, vis-à-vis the same offences, held
that mere recovery by itself, would not prove the
charge against the accused and in absence of
any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to

40/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

show that the accused had voluntarily accepted
the money knowing it to be bribe, conviction
cannot be sustained.

22. In a recent enunciation by this Court to
discern the imperative pre-requisites of Sections
7 and 13 of the Act, it has been underlined in B.
Jayaraj (supra) in unequivocal terms, that mere
possession and recovery of currency notes from
an accused without proof of demand would not
establish an offence under Sections 7 as well as
13(1)(d)(i)&(ii) of the Act. It has been
propounded that in the absence of any proof of
demand for illegal gratification, the use of
corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a
public servant to obtain any valuable thing or
pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be
proved. The proof of demand, thus, has been
held to be an indispensable essentiality and of
permeating mandate for an offence
under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act. Qua Section
20 of the Act, which permits a presumption as
envisaged therein, it has been held that while it
is extendable only to an offence under Section
7 and not to those under Section 13(1)(d)(i)&(ii)
of the Act, it is contingent as well on the proof of
acceptance of illegal gratification for doing or
forbearing to do any official act. Such proof of
acceptance of illegal gratification, it was

41/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

emphasized, could follow only if there was proof
of demand. Axiomatically, it was held that in
absence of proof of demand, such legal
presumption under Section 20 of the Act would
also not arise.

23. The proof of demand of illegal
gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence
under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i)&(ii) of the Act
and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge
therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any
amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or
recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand,
ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring
home the charge under these two sections of the
Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to
prove the demand for illegal gratification would
be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from
the person accused of the offence under Sections
7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction
thereunder.

5.23. As per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in

the cases of Nanjappa and Dinesh Kumar as stated supra which

squarely applies to the present case shows that the order of the

Sanctioning Authority suffers from non application of mind and

therefore, the learned trial Judge ought to have considered the

42/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

same and discharged the petitioner from the charges framed.

5.24. In regard to approver’s evidence, the learned Senior

counsel contended that it is vital to point out the fact that the entire

case of the prosecution rests on the statement of L.W.27, one

Mr.E.Shanmugaiah, who was first an accused in the FIR but later

turned as an approver by grant of pardon. There is no direct

evidence apart from the evidence of approver as against the

petitioner which is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

5.25. At this point of time, it is relevant to cite the approver’s

character before appreciating his evidence, Document No.D 293, a

list of communications where a report on the misdeeds of the

approver is articulated therein. Moreover, he also drew the

attention of this Court that, E.Shanmugaiah was in the habit of

misusing the name of superior officers to extort money/bribe from

individuals and the same can be seen from the report of the

Additional Superintendent of Police, his immediate superior. The

allegation/charge against the petitioner is also similar in nature. It

is submitted that neither any witness other than approver nor

document reveals any contact between the petitioner and the

43/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

alleged extortion. Further, the statement of E.Shanmugaiah being

an approver, who was granted a pardon, cannot be taken into

account at the stage of framing of charges.

5.26. Reliance cannot be placed on the statement of

E.Shanmugaiah, who is not only proven to be an unreliable witness

but also due to the fact that such a statement cannot be used at the

time of framing of charges bereft of any other supporting or

corroborating evidence as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Suresh Budharmal Kalani’s case as stated supra.

Hence, pleaded that the trial Court ought to have considered the

same and discharged the petitioner herein.

5.27. The learned Senior counsel drew the attention of this

Court to Sections 340 and 347 IPC and the same has been

extracted for ready reference as under:

340.Wrongful confinement:-

Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in
such a manner as to prevent that person from
proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits,
is said “wrongfully to confine” that person.

44/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

347. Wrongful confinement to extort
property, or constrain to illegal act.—
Whoever wrongfully confines any person for the
purpose of extorting from the person confined, or
from any person interested in the person
confined, any property or valuable security or of
constraining the person confined or any person
interested in such person to do anything illegal or
to give any information which may facilitate the
commission of an offence, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to three years, and shall also
be liable to fine.

5.28. Section 347 of IPC for wrongful confinement to extort

property has been charged against the petitioner. There is no

prima facie case or factual foundation to invoke Section 347 IPC. It

is pivotal to note that the petitioner herein was not in charge of the

investigation and it was only the second accused/A2, who was part

of the Paazee Trading investigation and reimbursement committee

and A3/Inspector, who was in-charge. The police obtained

information that one Jayaraman/L.W.8 and Meena

Shantakumari/L.W.16, who were the agents of Paazee Trading were

still functioning when the operations were shut down by the police,

45/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

the petitioner merely directed the concerned officials to conduct a

raid in their respective premises. The statement given by

Jayaraman specifically refers that only A3 took him to the station

for questioning and sent in the same evening as he was not

arrested. Hence, there is no stretch of imagination be the reason to

invoke Section 340 (wrongful confinement) and Section 347 of IPC

as against the petitioner and the charge under Section 347 is

erroneous.

5.29. So far as Section 384 IPC is concerned, the petitioner

has been charged under the same for extortion. In order to invoke

Section 384 IPC, two things are mandated namely, intentionally

putting a person in fear of injury to himself or another and

dishonestly inducing the person so put in fear to deliver to any

person any property or valuable security. Section 384 of the IPC

(Indian Penal Code) deals with punishment for extortion. According

to Section 384 IPC, whoever commits or does extortion shall be

punished or will be held with imprisonment of either description for

a term which may extend to three years, or with a fine, or with

both, and also as per the facts of the cases as per section 384 IPC.

Insofar as the present case on hand is concerned, the perusal of the

46/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

statement relied upon by one Kamalavalli/L.W.2 would show that

she never made any allegation as against the petitioner to bring

home the ingredients of Section 384 IPC. Since Kamalavalli

completely goes back on her previous statement and in her second

statement, she states that she went on a pilgrimage voluntarily,

without considering the reliability of the statements of Kamalavalli,

the charge is framed in a mechanical manner and the charge

framed under 384 IPC is also baseless. The learned trial Judge has

gone forward to frame charges without the necessary ingredients to

establish an offence under Sections 347 and 384 of IPC, which

resulted in total non application of mind.

5.30. The petitioner was charged under Section 506(i) of IPC

for criminal intimidation. In order to bring this charge, it is

necessary to prove that the ingredients of Section 503 IPC were

made out. It is essential to show that threatening a person with

any injury to his person or property or reputation or to anyone on

which the person is interested and the threat must be with intent to

cause alarm; to cause such person to do any act which he is not

legally bound to do or cause such person to omit to do anything

which he is legally entitled to do. The statement of Kamalavalli

47/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

appears to be the basis even though the same is not referred in the

order of discharge. As far as the statement of Kamalavalli is

concerned, it was already dealt with. The statement of

E.Shanmugaiah/approver is concerned, he merely stated that

Inspector General instructed him to make an anonymous call to

bring home the ingredients of Section 503. Hence, there is no

question as the petitioner directly being involved in order to show

that Section 506(i) would be attracted against him in this case. A

perusal of charge No.4 itself shows that it has jumbled too many

facts and no offence has been made out against the petitioner to

prove the ingredients under Section 503 to frame a charge under

Section 506(i).

5.31. In regard to Section 8 of PC Act which shows that it can

only be attracted to private persons and not public servants.

Furthermore, there is nothing in the charge sheet or witness

statements to show that A4 and A5 were ever in contact with the

petitioner herein. There is no evidence to prove that A4 and A5

influenced the petitioner to misuse his power either in the charge

sheet or in the accompanying documents. Section 10 of PC Act

also ought to vanish since Section 10 is punishment for abetting an

48/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

offence under Section 8. The prosecution has failed to establish a

prima facie connection between A1 and the private persons A4 and

A5 and therefore, Sections 8 and 10 of PC Act would not attract.

5.32. It is pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel that the

prosecution while filing the charge sheet has left open the question

of money trail to further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

Even as per the prosecution’s status report before the trial Court

dated 17.10.2023, further investigation is still ongoing and money

trial is to be established. It is further submitted that neither proof

of demand nor any money trial to show acceptance is established by

the prosecution and it is the settled proposition of law that in the

absence of demand, a charge under Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act

completely fails.

5.33. Thus, while concluding their arguments, both the

learned Senior counsel pleaded this Court that the orders impugned

by the trial Court has to be set aside.

6. Contentions of the learned Senior counsel and

counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/CBI is as

49/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

follows:

6.1. The petitioner during his tenure as Inspector General of

Police, Coimbatore Division, directed the registration of complaint

against one Paazee Trading for defrauding the public by collecting

hundreds of crores as deposits in the name of doing Forex trade

without license from Reserve Bank of India (RBI). Pursuant to the

said direction of the petitioner, on 24.09.2009 CCB, Tirupur suo

moto registered Cr.No.26 of 2009 against the directors of the said

Company namely, Mohanraj, Kathiravan and Kamalavalli under

Sections 3 and 4 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme

(Banning) Act, 1978 & under Section 420 of IPC. Subsequently,

Section 5 of Tamil Nadu Protection of Investments of Depositors Act

was also included.

6.2. On 08.10.2009, this Court while granting anticipatory bail

to all the three accused in Crl.O.P.No.20887 of 2009, directed the

Superintendent of Police, Tirupur to take effective measures for

ensuring repayments to the depositors by the accused persons.

6.3. On 08.12.2009, A.Kamalavalli, the third accused in

50/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

Cr.No.26 of 2009 went missing and “a woman missing case” was

registered by Tirupur North Police Station on 09.12.2009 under

Cr.No.3068 of 2009 at the instance of her driver.

6.4. The said Kamalavalli came on 11.12.2009 and on

14.02.2010, she gave a representation to the then Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Tirupur alleging that she was kidnapped

on 08.12.2009 and an amount of Rs.3 Crores was extorted from her

Company by three police officers viz., Rajendran-Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Tirupur; Mohanraj-Inspector of Police,

CCB Tirupur; & E.Shanmugaiah, formerly Inspector, CCB Tirupur

and a private individual namely, Annachi @ John Prabakar. On

15.02.2010, the Sections of woman missing case in Cr.No.3068 of

2009 was altered to Sections 323, 353, 365, 384 of IPC and Section

4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women (Amendment)

Act, 2002.

6.5. On 23.02.2010, Cr.No.26 of 2009 was transferred from

CCB, Tirupur to Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Coimbatore by the

Director General of Police (DGP), Tamil Nadu considering the nature

of gravity of the case and the same was re-registered as Cr.No.3 of

51/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

2010 by EOW.

6.6. On 18.03.2010 by the order of the DGP, Tamil Nadu, the

case in Cr.No.3068 of 2010 on the file of Tirupur North PS was

transferred to CB CID, Vellore. After investigation, on 15.09.2010

CBCID, Vellore altered the charges in Cr.No.3068 of 2009 to

Sections 384, 506(i) & 507 of IPC, Section 4 of TNHW(A) Act, 2002

and Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of PC Act against the

aforesaid three police officers and the private individual Annachi.

The petitioner was directed to attend an enquiry in connection with

the case in Cr.No.3068 of 2009 and the petitioner was interrogated.

6.7. In the meanwhile, the depositors had formed an

association and filed petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in

Crl.O.P.Nos.2691 and 5356 of 2011, seeking for transfer of the

investigation from State Police to CBI, scaring that the State Police

is protecting the directors of the Company and delaying the

payments to the depositors. This Court by its order dated

19.04.2011 in Crl.O.P.Nos.2691 and 5356 of 2011, observed the

nexus between Cr.No.26 of 2009 & Cr.No.3068 of 2009 and

directed transfer of both the cases to CBI for investigation. The

52/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

cases were transferred to CBI, EOW, Chennai and they were

renumbered as R.C.12/E/2011 and R.C.13/E/2011.

6.8. During investigation, it was found that the petitioner

while working as Inspector General of Police, West Zone,

Coimbatore during the year 2008-2009 and under whose

jurisdiction CCB Tirupur comes, abused his official position,

conspired with his subordinate police officers and extorted money to

the extent of Rs.2.85 Crores from the directors of Paazee Trading

Group of Companies i.e., the accused in Cr.No.26 of 2009. The

petitioner was arrayed as A6 through a memo filed before the

learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, Coimbatore on 28.02.2012.

His bail application in Crl.O.P.No.7071 of 2012 was dismissed by

this Court on 20.04.2012. The petitioner was arrested on

02.05.2012 in Crime No.3068 of 2009 and subsequently, released

on bail on 28.06.2012.

6.9. He has filed W.P.No.21801 of 2012 to forbear the

respondents therein from proceeding further with regard to

investigation in R.C.No.13(E)/2011-CBI/EOW/Chennai on the

ground that the petitioner is a member of IPS Cadre. He is in the

53/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

category of officer of the level of Joint Secretary and hence, as per

Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946

(DSPE Act), it is mandatory to get prior permission to initiate any

investigation against the petitioner and that the investigation

launched against the petitioner is in violation of the statutory

mandate of Section 6A of the DSPE Act and therefore, is invalid and

non-est in the eye of law and prayed that the entire investigation

made by the CBI against the petitioner should be set aside insofar

as the petitioner is concerned. On 05.12.2012, the learned Single

Judge dismissed the Writ Petition holding that, this Court in exercise

of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., passed an order

transferring investigation from State Police to CBI and when the

transfer of investigation was ordered by this Court, CBI can

investigate the case even without getting prior permission from the

Central Government.

6.10. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of his Writ Petition, the

petitioner preferred a Writ Appeal in W.A.No.12 of 2013 against

W.P.No.21801 of 2012. The said Writ Appeal was dismissed on

29.04.2013 on the ground that, prior approval contemplated under

Section 6A DSPE Act is only directory and not mandatory and

54/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

consequently, non compliance of the same would not vitiate the

proceedings and further held that, direction in the order made in

Crl.O.P.Nos.2691 and 5356 of 2011 dated 19.04.2011 to transfer

investigation from State Police to CBI, cannot be said to be in

deviation of any statutory provisions. The said order dated

19.04.2011 transferring investigation to CBI remains unchallenged.

6.11. On 08.05.2013, the Tamil Nadu Government issued

sanction to prosecute the petitioner under Section 197(1)(b) of the

Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 which was followed by the

sanction issued by the Central Government on 10.05.2013 to

prosecute the petitioner under Section 19(2) of PC Act.

6.12. On 22.05.2013, after completing the investigation in the

woman missing case in Cr.No.3068 of 2009, CBI had filed a final

report before the Special Court for CBI Cases at Coimbatore which

had been taken cognizance as C.C.No.2 of 2013 for commission of

the offences punishable under Sections 120-B r/w.347, 384, 506(i),

507 IPC and also under Sections 8, 10, 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of PC

Act, 1988.

55/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

6.13. CBI had also completed the investigation with respect to

the offence in Cr.No.26 of 2009 and had filed a final report before

the Special Court for TNPID Cases in Coimbatore, which had taken

cognizance of the final report as C.C.No.9 of 2011 against the

accused, Mohan Raj, Kathiravan, Kamalavalli, M/s.Paazee Marketing

Co., for offences punishable under Sections 120-B r/w. Section 4 of

Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978,

Section 420 IPC and Section 5 of TNPID Act, 1997.

6.14. On 05.07.2013, the petitioner/Pramod Kumar filed a

special leave to Appeal (C) No.17999 of 2013 against the judgment

of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. By order dated

17.03.2015, the Hon’ble Supreme Court remanded the matter,

namely, W.P.No.21801 of 2012 back to this Court and directed

afresh adjudication by impleading the appellant therein, namely,

Pramod Kumar in Crl.O.P.Nos.2691 and 5356 of 2011 and afford

him an opportunity of being heard. The order dated 05.12.2012 in

W.P.21801 of 2012 was set aside.

6.15. In the interregnum, on 06.05.2014, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court struck down Section 6A of the DSPE Act as invalid in

56/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

Dr.Subramanian Swamy Vs. Director, CBI and another,

W.P.(Civil) No.38 of 1997.

6.16. On 19.10.2015, C.C.No.2 of 2013 was closed by the

trial Court vide docket order based on a memo filed by the

petitioner and in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in C.A.No.3062 of 2015 and subject to the order passed by

this Court in W.P.No.21801 of 2012, Crl.O.P.Nos.2691 & 5356 of

2011. The said docket order closing the case pending under

C.C.No.2 of 2013 was challenged by the CBI on 20.01.2016 in

Crl.O.P.No.1661 of 2016.

6.17. On remand, heard the batch of cases and this Court on

02.11.2021 passed a common order in W.P.No.21801 of 2012,

Crl.O.P.Nos.2691 & 5356 of 2011, Crl.O.P.No.1661 of 2016 etc.,

whereby this Court i) confirmed the transfer of investigation to CBI

and subsequent investigation; ii) set aside closing of C.C.No.2 of

2013 by trial Court and iii) directed the trial Court to proceed with

the case. Against the common order of this Court dated

02.11.2021, the petitioner filed Special Leave Petition, which was

dismissed as withdrawn on 19.07.2022.

57/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

6.18. On 11.08.2022, the petitioner filed Crl.O.P.No.19442 of

2022 for quashing the charge sheet filed by CBI pending in

C.C.No.2 of 2013, contending that striking down Section 6A of the

DSPE Act, is prospective. On 11.09.2023 in another unrelated case,

CBI Vs. R.R. Kishore (Crl.A.No.377 of 2007), the Hon’ble

Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Section

6A of the DSPE Act, is void ab initio. The same was held to be in

effect retrospectively i.e., Section 6A not in force from date of

insertion viz., 11.09.2003. In the meanwhile, the said Original

Petition was dismissed.

6.19. On 23.11.2023, the trial Court dismissed the discharge

petition filed by the petitioner vide order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1527

of 2023. Subsequently on 28.11.2023, Crl.O.P.No.19442 of 2022

filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court and on the same

day, charges were framed against the petitioner and others by the

trial Court. Assailing the same, the present Criminal Revision

Petitions were filed along with Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

seeking interim stay of further proceedings in C.C.No.2 of 2013 on

the file of the learned II Additional District Judge for CBI Cases,

58/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

Coimbatore in order to protract the proceedings in C.C.No.2 of

2013.

6.20. Pursuant to the order dated 19.04.2011 of this Court in

Crl.O.P.Nos.2691 and 5356 of 2011, investigation of two cases,

were transferred to CBI out of which in one case, the trial was

completed and the judgment was delivered by the trial Court on

26.08.2022, convicting the accused to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for 27 years and also imposing a fine of Rs.171

Crores, while in the present case, charges were framed only on

28.11.2023.

6.21. The petitioner has challenged the final report before the

trial Court on the following grounds viz., it does not satisfy the

ingredients under IPC and PC Act and also bereft of any ingredients;

it does not reveal about money trial of the petitioner; sanction

under Section 19(2) of the PC Act suffers from non application of

mind as Section 8 of the PC Act, is not applicable to the public

servant and also since the investigation has not disclosed any

money trial. Since Section 8 and 10 applies only to private persons

and therefore, the charges against the petitioner under those

59/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

Section cannot exist. It is also contended that Section 197(1)(b) of

Cr.P.C., also suffers from non application of mind for similar

reasons. It is also contended that ingredients of the offences under

Sections 120-B r/w.347, 384, 506(1), 507 IPC and Sections 8, 10,

13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 are not made out. Moreover, it

has been stated by the petitioner that the statement of

approver/L.W.27 is not admissible in view Section 30 of the Indian

Evidence Act and the proposition laid down in 1998 (7) SCC 337

[Suresh Budharmal Kalani Vs. State of Maharashtra. It is

their case that a statement of an accused, who is later discharged

and not tried together, cannot be used against the co-accused

facing the trial, if they do not face trial together. Therefore, the

statement of the approver, who is granted pardon under Section

306 of Cr.P.C., cannot be used against the petitioner as he does not

face trial along with the petitioner. Section 13 of the PC Act is not

attracted, since there is no demand and lack of money trial and

recovery in view of proposition laid down in 2015 (10) SCC 152

[P.Satyannarayana Murthy Vs. District Inspector of Police,

State of A.P. and another].

6.22. However the trial Court on hearing the arguments on

60/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

both sides, dismissed the discharge petition filed by the petitioner

on the following grounds:

i)Discharge is not a proper stage to decide about

inconsistencies. It is only after the trial, the inconsistencies and

contradictions can be considered and the probative value of the

materials can be gone into. The trial Court relied on the decisions

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2008 (2) SCC 561

[Onkar Nath Mishra & Others V. State (NCT of Delhi) &

another] and 2004 (8) SCC 568.

ii)During discharge, what is required is to find out whether

there is ground for presuming whether prima facie case giving rise

to suspicion is made out. The trial Court relied on State of

Rajasthan Vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyab which lays down that

there cannot be a mini-trial during the stage of discharge.

iii)There is a recovery of 25 lakhs from A4 which is lying in

the FDR. Hence, the objection that there is no recovery is not at all

tenable. Even though the recovery is from A4, it is the case of

prosecution that A1 along with other accused are co-conspirators

and committed the alleged offences together.

iv)The trial court relied on AIR 2022 SC 5454 [Ghulam

Hasan Beigh V. Mohammed Maqbool Magrey & Others] which

61/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

states that the Court must be satisfied that the evidence is

sufficient to presume that the accused has committed the offence,

even a strong suspicion would suffice. For the same, the trail Court

also relied on State of Bihar V. Ramesh Singh and CBI Vs.

Aryan Singh.

v)The trial Court distinguished 1998 (8) SCC 337 [Suresh

Budharmal Kalani V. State of Maharashtra] relied on by the

petitioner on facts. It held in the present case that the co-accused

was not treated as an approver nor was given a tender of pardon

but was discharged. The accused was granted a pardon under

Section 306 Cr.P.C., and not a discharge. Section 164 Cr.P.C.,

statement of the approver forms part of the charge sheet.

vi)It also distinguished 2015 (10) SCC 152

[P.Satyanarayana Murthy V. District Inspector of Police,

State of A.P. & another] lays down that demand and proof of

demand is an essential ingredient to attract Section 13 of PC Act.

The trial Court held that the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered such

a view after full trial is completed and the petitioner cannot use the

said proposition at the stage of discharge.

6.23. The trial Court held that invalidity of sanction for non

62/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

application of mind cannot be questioned at the time of discharge.

The trial Court relied on Prakash Singh Badal and Another Vs.

State of Punjab, 2012 (1) SCC 532, 2014 (14) SCC 295 and

2020 (17) SCC 664.

6.24. It held that there were call detail records, travel

particulars and statements of 103 witnesses to show the conduct

between the accused and there were enough grounds to proceed

with framing of charges and dismissed the discharge application

filed by the petitioner.

6.25. The trial Court proceeded with framing the charges and

has framed 8 charges under Section 120-B r/w.347, 384, 506(i),

507 of IPC and Section 8, 10, 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988.

6.26. The petitioner/A1 has preferred the present two revision

petitions against the order dismissing the discharge application and

as against framing of charges.

6.27. The grounds raised were the same as one raised in the

discharge petition along with few other grounds in addition to the

63/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

above mentioned here. They are a) sanction bad in law; b) prima

facie discrepancies in the charge sheet grounds; c) evidentiary

value of approver’s statement; d) offences under IPC and PC Act

are not made out; e) documents and witness statements bereft of

any merits and do not disclose any triable offence against the

petitioner; f) judgment relied on by the trial Court are not

applicable to the facts of the present case on hand and hence, the

order is bad in law; g) charges framed against the petitioner is bad

in law since the charge is long and complicated; h) charge sheet

does not make out any charge against this petitioner; i) charge

sheet suffers from vagueness; j) the defects mentioned in the

charges does not fall under Section 464 Cr.P.C., and hence the

order framing the charges have to be quashed; k) The very framing

of charges is defective since the investigation has not been

completed. It is the petitioner’s case that the last paragraph

discloses that the investigation pertaining to the money trail is

ongoing and hence, investigation is not completed even as per the

case of the prosecution. Since the investigation is not complete, the

prosecution cannot file a final report under Section 173(2) of

Cr.P.C.; and l) The petitioner questions the credentials and conduct

of the approver and alleges that his statement under Section 164

64/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

Cr.P.C., are not believable and hence, prayed for allowing the

revisions.

6.28. The respondent has filed their counter disputing the

legal grounds raised by the petitioner and pleaded for dismissing

the revisions at the outset.

6.29. The learned counsel for the respondent/CBI submitted

that the grounds agitated by the petitioner is beyond the scope of

revision. He contended that at the stage of discharge, the Court has

to be satisfied that a prima facie case is made out against the

accused and cannot conduct a roving enquiry or a mini trial at this

stage. All the documents and statements of the witnesses filed by

the prosecution are genuine. In a discharge petition, the Court has

to merely sift through the evidence filed by the prosecution and

satisfy itself to proceed with the trial. He further contended that in

a revision, the Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence and can

only look into fundamental defects like lack of jurisdiction and

illegality leading to failure of justice.

6.30. Furthermore, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble

65/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

Supreme Court in the case of Willie (William) Slaney Vs. The

State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1956 SC 116 The

relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:

“5.Before we proceed to set out our answer
and examine the provisions of the Code, we will
pause to observe that the Code is a code of
procedure and, like all procedural laws, is
designed to further the ends of justice and not to
frustrate them by the introduction of endless
technicalities. The object of the Code is to ensure
that an accused person gets a full and fair trial
along certain well-established and well-
understood lines that accord with our notions of
natural justice. If he does, if he is tried by a
competent court, if be is told and clearly
understands the nature of the offence for which
he is being tried, if the case against him is fully
and fairly explained to him and he is afforded a
full and fair opportunity of defending himself,
then, provided there is substantial compliance
with the outward forms of the law, mere
mistakes in procedure, mere in consequential
errors and omissions in the trial are regarded as
venal by the Code and the trial is not vitiated
unless the accused can show substantial
prejudice. That, broadly speaking, is the basic
principle on which the Code is based.

66/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

6.31. It has clearly noted that there are three ingredients to

attract failure viz., a)trial by a competent Court b)the accused

understands the nature of offence, c)if the case is fully and fairly

explained to him and he is afforded with a full and fair opportunity

of defending himself. In the present case, none of the three

ingredients are satisfied. The accused has clearly read and

understood the charge against him and has pleaded not guilty.

Since the petitioner has signed and very clearly pleaded not guilty,

he is estopped from taking a different stand in the revision.

6.32. In yet another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Lachman Dass V. Santokh Singh reported in 1995 (4) SCC

201 para 7, clarified that the discretionary remedy of revision is not

akin to an appeal and distinguished their scope and ambit as below:

7.The legislature has however, made a
provision for discretionary remedy of revision
which is indicative of the fact that the Legislature
has created two jurisdictions different from each
other in scope and content in the form of an
appeal and revision. That being so the two
jurisdictions – one under an appeal and the other
under revision cannot be said to be one and the

67/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

same but distinct and different in the ambit and
scope. Precisely stated, an appeal is a
continuation of a suit or proceedings wherein the
entire proceedings are again left open for
consideration by the appellate authorities which
has the power to review the entire evidence
subject, of course, to the prescribed statutory
limitations. But in the case of revision whatever
powers the revisional authority may have, it has
no power to reassess and re-appreciate the
evidence unless the statute expressly confers on
it that power. That limitation is implicit in the
concept of revision.

6.33. In furtherance of his contentions, he relied upon the

decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of

Tamil Nadu Vs. R.Soundirarasu reported in 2023 (6) SCC 768

has held that the revisional power can be exercised to correct

manifest error of law or procedure which would occasion injustice if

not corrected. A revisional Court cannot undertake meticulous

examination of materials on record as it is undertaken by the trial

can be called for only in the rarest of rare cases to correct patent

error of jurisdiction. The relevant portions of the judgment reads as

under:

68/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

79.Thus, the revisional power cannot be
exercised in a casual or mechanical manner. It
can only be exercised to correct manifest error of
law or procedure which would occasion injustice,
if it is not corrected. The revisional power cannot
be equated with appellate power. A revisional
court cannot undertake meticulous examination
of the material on record as it is undertaken by
the trial court or the appellate court. This power
can only be exercised if there is any legal bar to
the continuance of the proceedings or if the facts
as stated in the charge-sheet are taken to be
true on their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not constitute the offence for which
the accused has been charged. It is conferred to
check grave error of law or procedure.

80.This Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road
Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Bureau of
Investigation, (2018) 16 SCC 299, has held that
interference in the order framing charges or
refusing to discharge is called for in the rarest of
rare case only to correct the patent error of
jurisdiction.

6.34. On the very same aspect, the learned counsel for the

respondent relies on the following judgments viz., a) S.Kannan &

Others Vs. The State [Crl.O.P.Nos.3761 to 3764, 3901 of

69/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

2019] and b)Dalbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. [2004 (5) SCC

334].

6.35. Continuing his arguments, he contended that the

petitioner has filed several rounds of writs in the Hon’ble Supreme

Court, as well as this Court and it is not now permissible to allege

that charge is too complicated to understand by taking into account

his professional capacity and antecedents. Further, it is pertinent to

state that the petitioner did not object to the charges being

complicated even during questioning and also at the time of framing

of charges. It is also evident that the stand taken by the petitioner

is purely an afterthought and the contention of the petitioner, is

unsustainable.

6.36. Insofar the scope of trial Court in discharge and framing

of charges is concerned, the trial Court had come to a presumptive

opinion that it is a fit case for trial. In order to appreciate the order

of the trial Court, it is necessary to peruse through a few witness

statements. The first statement of L.W.1 clearly shows the

relationship between A4 and A1 and the illegal demand made by A1

and his co-conspirators against L.W.1 for Rs.10 Crores. The acts of

70/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

extortion by all the co-conspirators against L.W.1 is also clearly

seen from the typed set of the petitioner itself produced before this

Court and L.W.1 has stated that he has paid an amount of Rs.50

lakhs in cash to A4 as instructed by A1 and has promised to pay the

remaining amount and establishes the nexus between all the

accused. 161 Cr.P.C., statement of L.W.20/Balaganga Devi, IPS is

crystal clear on the fact that A1 wanted the approver posted to

Tirupur CCB inspite of her vehement opposition. It also obvious to

note from the typed set of the petitioner that the committee

members in-charge of transferring officers were not consulted and

A1 without assigning any reasons transferred approver to CCB

Tirupur for carrying out his illegal activities and act of extortion. The

statement of the approver Shanmugaiah throws more light on the

conspiracy that had taken place among all the accused. His

statement is clear about the involvement of A1 and his special

interest in making L.W.1 and L.W.2 to settle certain depositors.

The approver has clearly stated that A3 mentioned that A1 and A4

had arranged for 60:40 sharing with one of the depositors namely,

Sadhasivam from the recovered amount. This statement also

discloses that A1 scolded the approver for not obtaining cash from

L.W.1 in the Sadhasivam’s matter in spite of his instructions. It is

71/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

also obvious that there was a demand for Rs.50 Crores from L.W.1.

The approver discloses that he was handed over Rs.10 lakhs as a

partial payment of the bribe demanded by A1 and his co-

conspirators. These three statements alone very clearly disclose the

existence of a criminal conspiracy, demand for bribe, receiving the

bribe, extortion and criminal intimidation. The statements taken at

their face value clearly discloses the offences charged and a very

strong suspicion making it a fit case for trial. Apart from this, there

are about 103 statements and 354 documents filed by the

prosecution.

6.37. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Captain

Manjit Singh Virdi (Retired) V. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf reported

in 2023 (7) SCC 633 held that the Court cannot weigh and balance

evidence and probabilities during the stage of framing of charges

and it is the function of the Court after the trial starts. Similarly, the

respondent relies on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Ghulam Hassan Beigh V. Mohammed Maqbool Magrey [2022 (12)

SCC 657]; State of Rajasthan Vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap [2021 (11)

SCC 191] and CBI Vs. Aryan Singh etc [2023 SCC Online Sc 379].

Further cited the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amit

72/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and another [2012 (9) SCC 460]. The

relevant paragraphs of the judgment reads as under:

“17.Framing of a charge is an exercise of
jurisdiction by the trial court in terms of Section
228 of the Code, unless the accused is
discharged under Section 227 of the Code. Under
both these provisions, the court is required to
consider the ‘record of the case’ and documents
submitted therewith and, after hearing the
parties, may either discharge the accused or
where it appears to the court and in its opinion
there is ground for presuming that the accused
has committed an offence, it shall frame the
charge. Once the facts and ingredients of the
Section exists, then the Court would be right in
presuming that there is ground to proceed
against the accused and frame the charge
accordingly. This presumption is not a
presumption of law as such. The satisfaction of
the court in relation to the existence of
constituents of an offence and the facts leading
to that offence is a sine qua non for exercise of
such jurisdiction. It may even be weaker than a
prima facie case.

….

19.At the initial stage of framing of a
charge, the court is concerned not with proof but

73/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

with a strong suspicion that the accused has
committed an offence, which, if put to trial, could
prove him guilty. All that the court has to see is
that the material on record and the facts would
be compatible with the innocence of the accused
or not. The final test of guilt is not to be applied
at that stage.

6.38. Section 216 of Cr.P.C., empowers the Court to alter or

add any charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced. On

this aspect, the respondent relies on P.Karthikalakshmi Vs. Sri

Ganesh and another [2017 (3) SCC 347].

6.39. He also dealt with the scope of revisional Court in

dealing with sanction and the right forum to question irregularities

pertaining to sanctioning stating that the ground pertaining to

sanction being defective is to be dismissed in limine on two grounds

viz., a)it has to be raised at the stage of trial; and b)Section 8 of PC

Act is applicable to public servants also. The learned counsel for

the respondent also relied on the decision of Parkash Singh Badal

Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2007 (1) SCC 1 which states that

the opening word of the Section is “whoever” is wide enough to

include public servants also. The relevant paragraphs of the order is

74/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

extracted for ready reference:

52.So far as the appellant Sukhbir Singh
Badal is concerned, the stand is that he being a
member of the Parliament is a public servant
and cannot be charged with offences
under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act. His contention
is that Sections 8, 9, 12, 14 and 24 of the Act
are applicable to private persons and not to
public servants. The opening word of Sections
8 and 9 is “whoever”. The expression is very
wide and would also cover public servants
accepting gratification as a motive or reward for
inducing any other public servant by corrupt or
illegal means. Restricting the operation of the
expression by curtailing the ambit of Sections
8 and 9 and confining to private persons would
not reflect the actual legislative intention.

53.If Section 8 is analytically dissected
then it would read as below:(i) Whoever (ii)
Accepts or obtains gratification from any person

(iii) For inducing any public servant (by corrupt
or illegal means) (iv) To render or attempt to
render any services or disservice (etc.) (v) With
any public servant (etc.)

75/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

56.In view of the above, it would not be
permissible to contend that a public servant
would be covered by Section 13(1)(d) (similar
to section 5(1)(d) of Old Act) and therefore the
public servant would not be covered by Sections
8 and 9 of the Act. The offences under Section
13(1)(d) and the offences under Sections
8 and 9 of Act are different and separate.

Assuming, Section 13(1)(d)(i) covers public
servants who obtain for ‘himself or for any other
person’ any valuable thing or pecuniary
advantage by corrupt or illegal means, that
would not mean that he would not fall within the
scope of Sections 8 and 9. The ingredients are
different. If a public servant accepts gratification
for inducing any public servant to do or to
forbear to do any official act, etc. then he would
fall in the net of Sections 8 and 9. In Section
13(1)(d) it is not necessary to prove that any
valuable thing or pecuniary advantage has been
obtained for inducing any public servant.

Hence on this reason alone, the ground cannot be entertained as it

goes against the very spirit of the section. Secondly, the right forum

to agitate the validity of sanction is during the course of trial and

the same has been affirmed in 2012 (1) SCC 532 [Dinesh Kumar

Vs. Airport Authority of India]. The ground is premature and

76/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

cannot be entertained at this stage. The same view has been

affirmed in CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal [2014 (14) SCC

295].

6.40. The next aspect to be considered is scope of Section

306 Cr.P.C., and the admissibility of statements of the approver,

who has been granted pardon. The very purpose of Section 306

Cr.P.C., is to prevent injustice from happening due to lack of

evidence and a pardon under Section 306 Cr.P.C., is granted only

for the purpose of recording evidence and bringing out the truth.

Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act has no application as alleged

by the petitioner, also the allegation that the statement of an

accused, who is discharged from the case cannot be applied to the

present case. The pardon granted under Section 306 Cr.P.C.,

cannot be equated to that of a discharge. Therefore, the application

of Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act will not arise in this instant

case. Hence, the grounds raised by the petitioner that the

statement of the approver is inadmissible is totally mindless and

illegal. In order to support this contention of the respondent, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2012 (1) SCC 500 [Bangaru Laxman

V. State (Through CBI) and another] clearly states that the

77/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

statement of a approver granted pardon should be used and the

main purpose of granting pardon is to prevent failure of justice by

allowing the offender to escape from lack of evidence. The

respondent also relies on 2004 (5) SCC 334 as stated supra on the

similar aspect.

6.41. It is pertinent to note that as per Section 464 Cr.P.C.,

only defects that lead to failure of justice can be used to invalidate

a judgment. All other defects cannot be questioned in appeal or

revision. In the instant case, all the alleged defect that the

petitioner points out are the ones that fall within the purview of

Section 464 Cr.P.C., whether such defect has lead to failure of

justice can be answered only after completion of trial. There are

three ingredients to attract failure of justice viz., i)trial by a

competent court ii)the accused understands the nature of offence

iii)if the case is fully and fairly explained to him and he is afforded

with a full and fair opportunity of defending himself. In the present

case, none of three ingredients are satisfied. It is important to note

that any omission to frame a charge or a defective charge can be

cured by virtue of Section 216 of Cr.P.C. This section enables the

Court to add or alter charge at any time before the judgment is

78/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

pronounced. The entire argument of the petitioner is that the first

charge runs to 14 pages without satisfying ingredients of certain

offences. Therefore as mentioned earlier in the light of Section 216

of Cr.P.C., the charges can be altered depending on the evidence in

the trial if necessary and raising the same at this stage, is

premature.

6.42. It was also argued by the petitioner that the order

framing the charges are defective since the investigation is not

complete as the evidence for money trial leading to A1 is yet to be

filed. This argument is wholly incorrect since it is the prerogative of

the Investigating Officer to fit. In fact, in the case of State of

Haryana Vs. Mehal Singh and another [ILR 1978 (2) P & H

44], wherein it was held that even if the Investigating Officer has

not received the evidence of expert, statement of witnesses and

other documents, the job of an Investigating Officer is over as far

as investigation is concerned. If the Investigating Officer comes

across any other evidence and he seeks to adduce the same. There

has to be a petition under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., filed and it is

within the discretion of the Court to allow such evidence to be

produced or not. When such evidence is allowed to be adduced a

79/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

copy of the same would be provided to the accused and a fair

chance to defend the case would also be given.

6.43. Summing their contentions, it was submitted by the

learned counsel for the respondent/CBI that the argument of the

petitioner revolves around the petitioner having a good case in the

trial. All the material relied upon by the petitioner can be gone into

only during trial. In that case, the petitioner has to face the trial

and make out his defence. As pointed out above, a revision cannot

be entertained on the aspects highlighted by the petitioner since

none of the grounds lead to failure of justice and the petitioner has

miserably failed to make out a fit case for the purposes of revision.

The background of the petitioner, his educational qualification, his

professional capacity and his antecedents have to be taken note of

when assessing the capacity of the petitioner to understand the

charge. The petitioner is an IPS officer in the zone for consideration

for the post of DGP, being the highest post in the department for

the State. The petitioner has also pleaded not guilty and has not

objected to the charges framed during the proceedings before the

trial Court. Moreover, the conduct of the petitioner is to be noted

and it is clear that the petitioner is abusing the process of law and

80/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

trying to delay the trial as much as possible which cannot be

permitted. On perusing and examining the witnesses statements,

the trial Court came to the right conclusion that there is a fit case to

proceed against the accused as the statement taken at their face

value are very clear about the fact that there was conspiracy.

There is also evidence that A4 has received bribe on behalf of the

first accused/A1 and there was recovery to the tune of Rs.25 lakhs.

Hence, the learned Senior counsels for the respondent prayed this

Court to dismiss the present revisions filed by the petitioner.

7. In response to the counter filed, the learned Senior

Counsels contended that it is the duty cast upon the respondent to

prove the averments made in the counter. At the same time, the

learned Senior counsel admitted the contents of the counter in

regard to paragraphs 2 to 4 as much as they are the matters of

record but however, denied the remaining averments. Further, the

learned Senior counsel highlighted that Kamalavalli had

altered/changed her statement on three occasions, wherein it was

brought out that she had not been kidnapped but had gone on her

own accord in order to avoid repercussions with respect to the then

ongoing investigation in Crime No.26 of 2009 and also stated that

81/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

she had continuously changed her statements which raised the

question as to her credibility.

8. Furthermore, he submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court

while disposing of SLP (C) No.17999 of 2013 was pleased to set

aside the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.21801 of 2012 and

remanded the mater back to this Court to be heard afresh. It is

stated that the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.Nos.2691 and

5356 of 2009 dated 19.04.2011 would not come in the way while

deciding these petitions since the petitioner herein was not made a

party and heard while deciding the said Criminal Original Petitions.

Subsequently, this Court combining all the pending matters before

it, passed its order on 02.11.2021, the petitioner had challenged

the same before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP Cri. Nos.8901 to

8904 of 2021. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide

its order dated 19.07.2022 was pleased to permit the petitioner

herein to approach the appropriate Courts with remedies available

under law and was also pleased to record that the observations

made in the common order dated 02.11.2021 ought not to come in

the way when Courts are deciding proceedings as against the

petitioner.

82/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

9. The learned Senior counsel denied the fact that the present

revisions are filed merely to delay further proceedings before the

trial Court. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has

time and again made certain observations to the effect that Section

19(3)(b) and (c) of PC Act do not act as an impediment to the High

Court exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner

is merely exercising his right under law and the same cannot be

construed as a dilatory tactic. Moreover, the completion of trial in

the Paazee Trading case has nothing to do with the petitioner herein

and it is worthwhile to note that not a single mention concerning

the petitioner was brought about in the order of conviction. A

comparison between the Paazee Trading case and the instant case

is misplaced.

10. It was submitted that the instant criminal revision

challenging the dismissal order of petitioner’s discharge petition is

maintainable and is to be considered in the interest of justice. The

impugned order dismissing the discharge petition was passed on

23.11.2023 and the charges immediately framed on 28.11.2023

without affording appropriate time to the petitioner for challenging

83/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

the impugned order before this Court. Since the impugned order is

riddled with inaccuracies and errors, this Court may be pleased to

consider the same and pass appropriate orders.

11. While continuing his submissions, the learned Senior

counsel brought to the notice of this Court that the respondent has

filed a status report before the trial Court to the effect that

investigation is still ongoing in the matter. It is also submitted that

various documents including search mahazar which were

prepared/recovered at the time of arresting and conducting

searches on the petitioner in 2012 have not been filed before the

trial Court along with the charge sheet and hence, the respondent is

today estopped from placing reliance on the same in any further

investigation conducted since those documents have been available

prior to filing of the charge sheet in 2013.

12. The contention of the learned Senior counsel is that

framing of charges has been done in a mechanical way without

independent application of mind and consideration of the

investigation made in the charge sheet. The Hon’ble Supreme

Court goes one step further in stating that on account of invalidity

84/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

of sanction, the Courts ought to discharge the accused and not be

made to go through the rigour of trial. The learned trial Court failed

to appreciate the law laid down in Nanjappa’s case as stated supra

and has erroneously held that the factual matrix differs from the

present case on hand.

13. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner is not seeking

to evaluate the evidence available in the present case but merely

trying to show that even on prima facie consideration of the said

evidence, there is nothing which even rises a suspicion that the

petitioner has committed the alleged crimes that he has been

charged with and the same is permissible under law.

14. He drew the attention of this Court to the intention, scope

and purpose of Sections 227 and 239 of Cr.P.C., apart from the

inherent powers conferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., are to

ensure that no person is made to undergo the ordeal of trial just for

the sake of it when nothing in investigation or evidence point to the

commission of said offence. By merely stating that everything is a

matter for trial is a method of avoiding glaring holes in the

prosecution, investigation and the nature of evidence that

85/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

corroborates the investigation. These glaring holes, prima facie does

not disclose the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged

offences.

15. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

Suresh Budharmal Kalani stated supra is factually different and

inapplicable to the present case. The correlation between a

discharged accused and an accused, who has been granted a

pardon, has been entirely avoided from any redressal by the

respondent and the same ought to be considered by this Court in

discharging the petitioner.

16. It is denied that there exists prima facie material to

proceed with the matter or that there is enough evidence to convict

the petitioner herein. A prima facie case has not been made out

against the petitioner and the present proceedings are only an

attempt to drag the petitioner through gravel and mud. The

respondent has not appreciated the ratio as laid down in

P.Satyanarayan Murthy’s case. Even though it was a trap case, for

an offence under Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act especially, where there

are allegations of illegal gains, there ought to be a demand and

86/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

acceptance that will have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt by

the respondent. Having no such material, it is only just that the

petitioner is discharged from the instant case and the order framing

charges against the petitioner be set aside. It is submitted that

even as per the respondent’s own statement, the evidence of

L.Ws.1, 2, 16, 27, 30, 34 and 35, along with documents D-177 to

183, 198 to 202, 206 to 208, 222 to 235, 238 to 242, 244 to 284

and 302 to 304 are merely circumstantial and do not point out the

petitioner even being remotely involved in the offences, he has

been charged with. It is denied that a strong case has been made

out against the petitioner.

17. Reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

State of Rajasthan Vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap is entirely misplaced.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court therein held that a trial Court ought to

proceed further in trial only on satisfaction of suspicious

circumstances against the accused for charges to be framed. The

petitioner seeks to take this Court through the investigation and

evidence only to show that even prima facie, no case is made out as

against the petitioner herein since there is no involvement shown.

The respondent’s reliance on State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh does

87/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

not factually or legally apply to the present case at hand since i)it

talks about the general law on discharge which is well established

and not disputed by the petitioner and ii)it concerns the offence of

Section 302 and applicability of circumstance evidence to prove

cases under Section 302 and allied offences. Reliance of the

respondent on Ghulam Hassan Beigh Vs. Mohammad Maqbool

Magrey is misplaced since the same concerned, appreciation of

medico legal evidence which is entirely different from the case. The

Court ought not to consider these precedents as the same differ on

facts and the manner of appreciation of the law. Having referred to

paras 7.5 and 7.10 of the impugned order dated 23.11.2023, the

respondent has failed to take note of the specific reference by the

learned trial Judge in para 7.10 of the impugned order to the finding

of suspicion as against the accused by this Court in its common

order dated 02.11.2021. The learned trial Judge makes note of this

finding and decides to proceed with a bias mind owing to the

extracted finding from this Court’s common order dated

02.11.2021, when the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP.(Cri) Nos.8901

to 8904 of 2021 has very specifically observed that the common

order dated 02.11.2021 passed by this Court ought to not weigh on

the minds of any Court that are ceased of proceedings concerning

88/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

the petitioner. Therefore, on this ground alone, the impugned order

ought to be set aside.

18. Even though this Court vide its order dated 04.09.2023 in

Crl.M.P.No.13402 of 2023 in Crl.O.P.No.24216 of 2018, directed the

trial Court to proceed with trial, this Court was not informed that

the petitioner was enjoying an order of this Court dispensing with

his personal appearance before the trial Court vide this Court’s

interim order in Crl.O.P.No.19442 of 2022. Moreover, the petitioner

herein was not made a party to the said proceedings.

19. Insofar as issuance of NBW against the petitioner is

concerned, the same was misplaced since the petitioner at the

contemporaneous point in time was enjoying an order dispensing

with his personal appearance before the trial Court. When the

petitioner warrant was recalled by the trial Court, a discharge

petition was also preferred. Further, the learned trial Judge was

monotonous in framing charges and has merely reiterated the

investigation as laid out in the charge sheet. Hence, the same

ought not to be considered by this Court.

89/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

20. The petitioner’s quash petition in Crl.O.P.No.19442 of

2022 was dismissed since the scope of a discharge under Section

239 of Cr.P.C., is entirely different. It is also submitted that the

power of this Court as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asian

Resurfacing [2018 (16) SCC 299] and Section 19(3)(b) of PC

Act is not a bar on issuing orders of stay. The trail Court failed to

consider the fact that not even a prima facie case is made out as

against the petitioner herein and has mechanically interpreted the

issues involved as matters for trial.

21. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as relied upon

by the respondent in the case of Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh

Chander can also be canvassed in favour of the petitioner since it

is over perverse findings that the petitioner has preferred the

instant revision petitions. The decisions relied upon by the

respondent are on the general principles on the law of discharge. It

is submitted that the present case will have to be adjudicated on

the basis of its own merit and it would not fall under the ambit of

any of the judgments relied upon. It is further submitted that the

instant case is not the one where this Court is required to deep into

evidence but merely on a cursory view, it would be clear that there

90/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

is nothing that connects the petitioner to the alleged charged

arrayed against him. It is also reiterated as above that this Court

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has extensive powers to look into the

orders in discharge even though charges are framed.

22. Considered the rival submissions made on either side and

perused the materials available on record.

23. Discussions:

23.1. The charges framed against the petitioner herein are

criminal conspiracy, criminal intimidation, criminal misconduct,

wrongful confinement, abuse of power, illegal gratification for the

commission of the offences punishable under Sections 120-B

r/w.347, 384, 506(i), 507 of IPC r/w. Sections 8, 10 and 13(2)

r/w.13(1)(d) of the PC Act.

23.2. The learned Senior counsels submitted that the entire

case of the respondent rests only on hearsay and indirect evidence

and no proof has been produced to substantiate the allegations

levelled against the petitioner. It is contended that the charge

91/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

sheet, witnesses statements and documents filed along with the

charge sheet failed to make out a prima facie case as against the

petitioner. Furthermore, the learned counsel contended that the

charges framed are defective in nature; no material produced to

prove the charge and also no sanction from proper authority. He

also submitted that the material defect in the charge and omission

to frame a proper charge regarding demand, alleged grave

prejudice has been caused to the petitioner.

23.3. Per contra, the respondent/CBI has stated that the

petitioner, being an IPS officer has abused his capacity and indulged

in criminal conspiracy, instructed his sub-ordinates to extort money

from the directors/accused of Paazee Trading by criminally

intimidating them and involved in illegal gratification and pressed

their arguments to the effect that he is the key person for the entire

act of criminality. In this regard, they have placed several

documents and highlighted the evidences of the witnesses and

quoted various citations as stated above. It was further submitted

by the learned counsel for the respondent/CBI that the trial Court

after proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidences of

the case, have framed the charges as against the petitioner in

92/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

accordance with law, which warrants no interference by this Court

and hence, prayed to dismiss the revisions filed by the petitioner.

23.4. Since the charge sheet has been filed pending

investigation and the alleged money trial is yet to be established

even after 10 years of filing of charge sheet, the sanction accorded

by the Central Government under Section 19(2) of the PC is

arbitrary. The illegal gain by the petitioner has not been proved by

the investigating agency which is indispensable part of the offence

under the PC Act. It is also to be noted that for the offence under

Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, the prosecution has failed to

substantiate their stand to prove that the petitioner had misused his

power as a public servant and received illegal gratification. In view

of these facts, it is obvious to state that the sanctions accorded by

both the Central, as well as the State Authority, is without

application of mind, which is illegal and invalid in the eye of law.

23.5. In the present case on hand, even as per the charge

sheet, as well as the status report dated 17.10.2023, the

sanctioning authority failed to note the fact that the investigating

authority has not proved the act of illegal gain by the petitioner.

93/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

Section 8 of PC Act has been invoked against the petitioner which is

unsustainable as he is a public servant which has not been taken

into account by the sanctioning authority prior to grant sanction for

prosecuting him. Without any material on record to show the fact

that the petitioner has abetted an offence under Section 8 of PC

Act, Section 10 has been invoked by the respondent as against the

petitioner, which is per se illegal. Since the investigating authority

has failed to any receipt of illegal gratification, as well as money

trail pertaining to the petitioner, the sanction granted by the State

Government to prosecute the petitioner under Section 197(1)(b) of

Cr.P.C. is arbitrary and illegal. Moreover, as threat and extortion

with illegal gain has not been established as per Section 383 IPC,

Section 384 IPC does not attracts. Summing the above, proves the

sanction granted against the petitioner is bad in law.

23.6. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the decision of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mansukhlal Vithaldas

Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1997 (7) SCC 622 for

grant of sanction without application of mind, wherein it has held

that independent application of mind to the facts of the case as also

material and evidence collected during investigation by the

94/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

authority competent to grant sanction is mandatory. In yet another

case in Anthony Xavier Vs. State in Crl.A.No.479, 487 & 511

of 2013, this Court has held that in the absence of material

evidence, it has to be presumed that the order of sanction lacks

application of mind.

23.7. It was brought to the notice of this Court that there are

several prima facie discrepancies in the charge sheet filed by the

respondent. There is no whisper about the direct involvement of the

petitioner in the aforesaid offences except the statements of the

list witness viz., 1,2,3,8,16,27,34 & 35 and also to be noted that

the evidences produced before the trial Court are only hearsay

evidences. It is baseless and illegal to prosecute the petitioner for

extortion as the approver and the co-accused have demanded

money using his name. No role has been played by the petitioner in

the appointment of approver as Inspector, CCB, Tiruppur as his

appointment was done by the DIG of the Committee. As per Rule 3

of the All India Service Rules, all oral orders are to be reduced into

writing and approved by the concerned superior officer, hence

L.W.20’s statement in regard to approver’s appointment was

instructed by the petitioner is groundless and without any basis.

95/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

L.W.83’s complaint has been properly marked to the concerned

jurisdictional officer/A2 by the petitioner which does not reflect any

ulterior motive of extortion by the petitioner as alleged in the

charge sheet and not a single statement or document filed to

corroborate the same by the respondent. It is also crystal clear

that there is no nexus between the money and the petitioner as

stated by L.W.14 in his 161 statement which reveals that the co-

accused misused his name to extort money from various persons.

Furthermore, the statement of L.W.3 is wholly unreliable and cannot

be taken into consideration as she improvises her statement

frequently. As there are no oral or documentary evidence to prove

the demand of Rs.10 Crores by the petitioner, he cannot be liable

for any conspiracy, extortion or offences under PC Act. D-293 letter

of the approver dated 13.08.2009, as well as the report dated

17.08.2009 by the ASP, Nilgiris put on light the constant practice of

approver indulging in corrupt activities using the superior officers’

names and the petitioner had no role in his transfer which was done

by the transfer committee. It is also came to light that the duties

and responsibilities of A3 are decided by the committee and not by

the petitioner. In the charge sheet itself, it was stated that even

after the registration of criminal cases against the Paaze company

96/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

and directors, the agents of Paazee involved in illegal criminal

activities. For curtailing the same, raids were conducted which is

the duty cast upon the petitioner. It is stated in the charge sheet

that L.W.34 and L.W.35 have taken the amount from Coimbatore

and handed over the same to A4 in Chennai, which did not disclose

the involvement of the petitioner in the above transactions and the

respondent is still investigating to establish the money trail, that too

even after lapse of 10 years.

23.8. It is to be noted that there is no statement from any of

the witnesses that they have received the orders from the petitioner

directly to perform the alleged offences charged by the prosecution.

Moreover, the respondent relies only on the evidence of the

approver viz., document D-167 which is the confession statement

recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is the well settled proposition

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suresh Budharmal Kalani’s case as

stated supra that approver’s evidence cannot be used against the

accused for framing of charges. The trial Court has misinterpreted

the ratio laid in the aforesaid case and erred in making distinction

between the statement of a person discharged and a statement of

an approver. It is to be seen that the evidence of an approver, who

97/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

has been granted a pardon under Section 306 Cr.P.C. As per

Section 308 Cr.P.C., an approver to be degraded and be tried as an

accused in the same case.

23.9. Insofar as Section 347 IPC is concerned, no wrongful

confinement was ordered by the petitioner in respect of L.W.8, as it

was only for the purpose of investigation and hence, Section 347

does not attract. In respect of Section 384 IPC, there was neither

any threat nor extortion of property by the petitioner and the same

was not established through money trial by the prosecution as per

the status report dated 17.10.2023 which implies that investigation

with respect to money trial is still ongoing as there is no conclusive

evidence and therefore, the allegation under Sections 383 and 384

of IPC is groundless.

23.10. No record has been produced to prove the involvement

of the petitioner neither directly nor indirectly criminally or

anonymously intimidating any of the persons mentioned in the

charge sheet, which reveals that the offence levelled against the

petitioner under Sections 506(i) and 507 IPC does not attract.

98/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

23.11. In regard to the offence under Section 120-B, there is

no evidence to show connecting money trail or benefit to the

petitioner by the other accused including the approver which shows

that no case has been made out against the petitioner for the said

offence.

23.12. A bare reading of the Section 8 of PC Act reveals that

the said section can be attracted for private persons and not against

a public servant and the trial Court has also not dealt with this

section in the impugned judgment. In the case on hand, A4 and A5

private persons have not made any statement against the petitioner

about abetment and hence, the same cannot be charged against

the petitioner and no finding of the trial Court in the impugned

order in this regard.

23.13. There is neither demand nor acceptance of bribe by

the petitioner from the complainant and also, there is no recovery

and money trail linking the petitioner to any illegal gratification,

which is fatal to the case of the respondent and as regards misuse

of power for illegal gratification, except hearsay witness there is no

proof for abuse of power in his official capacity and and hence, the

99/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

offences under Section 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of the PC Act cannot be

maintainable.

23.14. Furthermore, there are also other discrepancies in the

order of the trial Court in its findings, wherein it has relied on the

document Nos.177 to 183, 198 to 202, 206 to 208, 222 to 235, 244

to 284 and 302 to 304 which are frivolous as it does not prove the

involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offences. Inspite of the

setting aside the order of this Court in Crl.O.P.Nos.2691 & 5356 of

2011 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 17.03.2014

in C.A.No.3062 of 2015, the trial Court has relied upon the same in

the impugned order. Moreover, the trial Court without proof of

commission of offence, has framed the charges against the

petitioner and has also misunderstood that the petitioner was a part

of the committee that was overseeing the disbursement of funds to

the defrauded depositors but he was not at all a member of such

committee which was evidenced from its impugned order dated

28.11.2023.

24. Concentrating on the submissions of the learned Senior

counsels on the following decisions defending their stand in respect

100/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

of the charges framed by the respondent:

24.1. Defective charge:

In the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Soundarajan V. State rep. by the Inspector of Police

Vigilance Anti-Corruption, Dindigul reported in 2023 SCC

Online SC 424, wherein it has held that under Section 464 of

Cr.P.C., omission to frame a charge or any error in charge is never

fatal unless, in the opinion of the Court, a failure of justice has in

fact been occasioned thereby. The relevant portion of the order

reads as follows:

“16.We find that, in this case, the charge
has been framed very casually. The trial Courts
ought to be very meticulous when it comes to
the framing of charges. In a given case, any
such error or omission may lead to acquittal
and/or a long delay in trial due to an order of
remand which can be passed under sub-section 2
of Section 464 of Cr.P.C. Apart from the duty of
the trial Court, even the public prosecutor has a
duty to be vigilant and if a proper charge is not
framed, it is his duty to apply to the Court to
frame an appropriate charge.”

101/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

In regard to similar issue, the decisions of Latu Mahto and

another V. State; Willie (William) Slaney V. The State; and Gaya

Prasad v. State of U.P. has been highlighted by the petitioner’s

counsel.

24.2. No material to charge:

In relation to this, it has already been dealt above in

this order in the case Suresh Budharmal Kalani’s case as stated

supra, wherein it has held that the confession statements cannot

called in aid to frame charges against the accused in absence of any

other evidence to do so.

24.3. No sanction from proper authority:

Likewise, in Nanjappa Vs. State of Karnataka [2015 (14)

SCC 186] has already dealt above, wherein it has held that the

competence of the court trying the accused so much depends upon

the existence of a valid sanction. In case the sanction is found to be

invalid the court can discharge the accused relegating the parties to

a stage where the competent authority may grant a fresh sanction

for prosecution in accordance with law. In yet another judgment in

P.Satyanarayana Murthy’s case as stated supra, it has held

102/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

that in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification,

the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public

servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot

be held to be proved. The proof of demand, thus, has been held to

be an indispensable essentiality and of permeating mandate for an

offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act and it was held that in

absence of proof of demand, such legal presumption under Section

20 of the Act would also not arise.

24.4. Charges:

a) Charge No.1 framed against the petitioner which runs to 14

pages for the offences under Sections 120-B r/w.347, 384, 506(i),

507 of IPC r/w. Sections 8, 10 and 13(20 r/w.13(1)(d) of PC Act is

vague and invalid as no tenable evidence has been produced by the

prosecution to prove the same and make out a prima facie case as

against the petitioner.

b) Charge No.4 for the alleged offence under Section 506(i)

IPC also not attracted since the anonymous commission threatening

the approver by the petitioner has not been corroborated through

103/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

any material evidence.

c) Insofar as Charge No.7 for the offence under Section 10 of

PC Act is concerned, due to the credibility of the approver’s

statement who used to misuse his superior officials’ names in order

to indulge in corrupt activities and also that, no proof has been

placed for the same by the respondent, the same cannot be

attracted as against the petitioner.

d) In regard to Charge No.8 framed under Section 13(2)

r/w.13(1)(d) of PC Act, since there is no demand or acceptance of

bribe and abuse of official capacity has been established against the

petitioner, the same cannot stand against him.

25. In the recent decision of the High Court of Rajasthan, in

the case of Jitendra Singh vs. State Of Rajasthan S.B.

[Criminal Revision Petition No. 265/2023] reported in 2023

LiveLaw (Raj) 37, it has held that “Forcing a person to go through

the rigor of trial without there being apt prima facie material or

evidence would surely be direct infringement of his fundamental

rights. Of course, if a person has to do nothing in connection with

104/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

the alleged offence but is still forced to remain on bail and to attend

the court proceedings, then restraining his liberties would

tantamount to breach of his fundamental rights…Framing of charge

is a determinative action,” the bench observed.”

26. In another decision, in the State of Kerala Vs. P.

Sugathan and Ors. reported in (2000) 8 SCC 203, it was held by

Hon’ble the Supreme Court that there is not enough evidence to link

the accused to the offence of criminal conspiracy. The relevant

paragraphs of the afore-mentioned judgment are as follows:

“12. We are aware of the fact that direct
independent evidence of criminal conspiracy is
generally not available and its existence is a
matter of inference. The inferences are normally
deduced from acts of parties in pursuance of
purpose in common between the conspirators.
This Court in V.C. Shukla v. State( Delhi
Administration) 1980 SCC (2) 665 held that to
prove criminal conspiracy, there must be
evidence direct or circumstantial to show that
there was an agreement between two or more
persons to commit an offence. There must be a
meeting of minds resulting in ultimate decision

105/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

taken by the conspirators regarding the
commission of an offence and where the factum
of conspiracy is sought to be inferred from
circumstances, the prosecution has to show that
the circumstances giving rise to a conclusive or
irresistible inference of an agreement between
the two or more persons to commit an offence.
As in all other criminal offences, the prosecution
has to discharge its onus of proving the case
against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

The circumstances in a case, when taken
together on their face value, should indicate the
meeting of the minds between the conspirators
for the intended object of committing an illegal
act or an act which is not illegal, by illegal
means. A few bits here and a few bits there on
which the prosecution relies cannot be held to be
adequate for connecting the accused with the
commission of the crime of criminal conspiracy. It
has to be shown that all means adopted and
illegal acts done were in furtherance of the object
of conspiracy hatched. The circumstances relied
for the purposes of drawing an inference should
be prior in time than the actual commission of
the offence in furtherance of the alleged
conspiracy.”

106/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

27. Also in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Mohan Lal Soni:

2000 Cri. LJ 3504, this Court while referring to several previous

decisions, held that the crystallised judicial view is that at the stage

of framing charge, the Court has to prima facie consider whether

there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

28. In the case of Neeraj Dutta V. State (Govt. of N.C.T.

of Delhi) reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 211, the Hon’ble Apex

Court has held that in the present case, there are no circumstances

brought on record which will prove the demand for gratification.

Therefore, the ingredients of the offence under Section 7 of the PC

Act were not established and consequently, the offence under

Section 13(1)(d) will not be attracted. Similarly, in the present case

on hand, there is neither direct evidence nor proof for demand and

acceptance has been proved by the respondent through any

evidence and also, allegation of demand of gratification and

acceptance made by a public servant/petitioner herein has not been

established beyond a reasonable doubt.

107/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

29. The High Court of Karnataka in the case of Somanath @

Somashekhar S/O. Mahadevappa … V. The State Of

Karnataka has held that “… It is settled principle of law in

criminal cases, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond all

reasonable doubt as alleged. In cases under Prevention of

Corruption Act, the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance

is to be proved. Then only presumption can arise. Here neither

there is evidence to show that either accused No.1 demanded

money nor he accepted that money. Drawing inference that accused

No.2 received money on behalf of accused No.1 has not an iota of

evidence. Such presumption is not based on any legally admissible

evidence. There is lot of difference between may be true and must

be true. On appreciation of the entire evidence of prosecution it

clearly indicates that, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of

accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt. As the evidence of

prosecution witnesses creates doubt about the prosecution case,

the benefit of doubt should go to accused No.1. If there are two

views possible from evidence of prosecution witnesses, then the

Court has to accept the view favourable to the accused.”

The aforesaid decision of the High Court of Karnataka is self

explanatory.

108/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

30. In the case on hand, the respondent has not proved the

essential ingredients of demand and acceptance as against the

petitioner and merely saying that the other accused has received

money on behalf of the petitioner, cannot substantiate their case

which is only presumptive. Such presumption is legally

unsustainable in the eye of law and there is lot of difference

between may be true and must be true. On appreciation of the

entire evidence of prosecution it clearly indicates that, the

prosecution has failed to prove the offences of the petitioner herein

beyond all reasonable doubt.

31. After an elaborate and analytical discussions of the case

on hand and also on an overall analysis of the submissions made on

either side and scrutinizing the charges framed against the

petitioner, looking from any angle, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the same is without application of mind and in violation

to principles of natural justice as the offences levelled against the

petitioner in framing the charges have not been proved by the

respondent through any prima facie evidence and hence, the

impugned orders of the trial Court dated 23.11.2023 and

109/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

28.11.2023 (framing of charges) suffers from material infirmity and

unsustainable in the eye of law.

32. For the foregoing reasons and in the light of the decisions

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various decisions of the High

Courts as stated supra, the impugned orders dated 23.11.2023 and

28.11.2023 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge for

CBI Cases, Coimbatore as against the petitioner herein, are set

aside. Consequently, the petitioner/first accused is discharged from

all offences charged in the Charge Sheet dated 28.11.2013 in

C.C.No.2 of 2013 pending on the file of the learned II Additional

District Judge for CBI Cases, Coimbatore.

33. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petitions stand

allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition(s) is/are

closed.




                                                                                    07.06.2024

                     NCC               :     Yes
                     Index             :     Yes
                     Order             :     Speaking

                     DP


                     110/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                  Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023




                     111/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                  Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023




                     To

1.The II Additional District Judge for CBI Cases,
Coimbatore.

2.State, CBI,
The Additional Superintendent of Police,
CBI, E.O.W., Shastri Bhavan,
Chennai.

3.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court, Chennai.

112/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023

VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

DP

Crl.R.C.Nos.2194 and 2195 of 2023
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.19769 & 19772 of 2023

07.06.2024

113/113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *