High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 28.11.2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. MOHAN RAMCRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION NOS.30366 AND30338 OF 2007ANDM.P.NOS.1 TO 3 AND 1 TO 3 OF 2007 IN BOTHTHE CRL.O.PS.T.L. Vedachalam... Petitioner in both the Crl.O.Ps.The State rep. byThe Inspector of PoliceSPE/CBI/ACB/Chennai.... Respondent in both the Crl.O.Ps.Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.praying to call for the records of the case in C.C.Nos.23 and 22 of2004 from the file of the learned Principal Special Judge for C.B.I.Cases, Chennai, quash the entire proceedings from the FirstInformation Report, dated 30.4.2002, Charge Sheet Nos.2 and 1, dated28.4.2004 respectively and all further proceedings against thepetitioner/A1, therein.For Petitioner : Mr. V. Ramana ReddyFor Respondent : Mr. Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, G.A. Crl.Side. Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases.O R D E RThe petitioner in the above criminal original petitions isthe first accused in C.C.Nos.23 and 22 of 2004 on the file of thePrincipal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai.2. Both the above said cases, the petitioner is facingtrail for charges under Sections 120-B r/w 420, 468, 468 r/w 471 IPCand Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. The above petitions have been filed seeking to quash allfurther proceedings in the said cases on identical grounds. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. Heard Mr.V. Ramana Reddy, learned counsel appearing forthe petitioner and Mr.Chandrasekaran, learned Special PublicProsecutor for CBI Cases appearing for the respondent.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that theaverments in the First Information Report on the face of it wouldnot constitute any offences as against the petitioner herein; thecharge sheets and the statements relied on for the same are alsoinherently defective in particulars and there are no nexus betweenthe actual procedures of process of settlement of claim and thecharges framed against the petitioner and as such the criminalproceedings are liable to be quashed; there were no bogus motorclaims; when the claims were submitted through reputed FinanceCompany, there is no men rea or material to show prima facie thatthere was a criminal conspiracy between the petitioner herein andthe vehicle owners; none of the ingredients of the offences underSections 120-B, 420, 468 or 471 IPC or the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are madeout either in the materials available on record or from thestatements purportedly recorded by the Police, or even from theevidence given by P.Ws.1 to 7 in the trial; under Section 197 ofCr.P.C. and under Section 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of CorruptionAct, 1988, it is mandatory that previous sanction to prosecuteshould have been obtained from the competent authority and in thiscase, no such sanction order was filed along with the charge sheetbut the same was filed after taking cognizance and hence the verycognizance taken by the Court below is liable to be quashed. 5. In support of his above contention, the learned counselfor the petitioner relied upon certain decisions. The learnedcounsel by drawing the attention of this Court to The conduct,Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1975 and particularly to schedule Bthereto, which is available at page No.2 of the typed set submittedthat the petitioner was working as Assistant General Manager and assuch in respect of Assistant Managers, the Appointing Authority andthe Disciplinary Authority is the Assistant General Manager andShri S.Sundaresan, Assistant General Manager, who is said to haveissued the sanction order and was examined as P.W.1 was theAssistant General Manager, Miscellaneous, Motor Underwriting &Claims, Loss Control, Grievances, R & D and Technical Services Cell& Solatium Fund. The said Sundaresan, who was looking after the saidportfolio is not competent to issue the sanction order.6. I have carefully considered the above said submissionsmade by the learned counsel for the petitioner.7. At the outset, it has to be pointed out that admittedlythe trial in both the cases has commenced and P.Ws.1 to 7 have alsobeen examined and the trial is almost coming to a close and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ cases are pending right from the year 2004 and at this belatedstage, the above two criminal original petitions have been filedseeking to quash the proceedings. All the contentions that havebeen urged in the above said petitions before this Court could verywell be urged before the trial Court at the time of arguments, butinstead, the petitioner has chosen to seek quashing of theproceedings at the belated stage.8. It is seen from the petition in Crl.O.P.No.30338 of 2007that earlier the petitioner had filed a discharge petition inCrl.M.P.No.1276/2007 before the trial Court in C.C.No.22 of 2004 andthe same came to be dismissed by order dated 30.7.2007 andchallenging the correctness of the said order, the petitioner hadfiled a criminal revision before this Court and the criminalrevision petition also came to be dismissed by this Court. But yetthe petitioner has filed the above criminal original petition urgingthe same grounds.9. It is seen from the order dated 13.9.2005 passed inCrl.M.P.Nos.319 and 320 of 2005 in C.C.Nos.22 and 23 of 2004respectively that the prosecution had filed the petitions underSection 311 read with 173 of Cr.P.C. seeking permission of theCourt to examine S.Sundaresan, Assistant General Manager as anadditional witness in the two cases and those applications wereallowed. In the said order, the learned Special Judge observed asfollows:-" Therefore, it is very clear that the prosecutionhad already obtained the sanction order from thecompetent authority and has also enclosed the samealong with the final report enabling this Court totake cognizance of the cases against the accused. Inthe said circumstances, the contention of the accusedthat the prosecution has not obtained the sanctionorder from the competent authority before laying thefinal report and therefore the same would affect thevery basis of the prosecution case cannot beaccepted."It is further observed in paragraph -7 of the said orderas follows:-" 7. It is contended by the 1st accused that the copyof the sanction order has not been furnished to him.But, there is an endorsement made by the accused ashaving received the copies of documents D1 to D112in R.C.19/02, C.C.23/04 and also the documents D1 toD189 (in bounded books) in R.C.19/A/02, C.C.22/04." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10. Therefore, from the above said observations containedin the above said order, the contention of the learned counsel forthe petitioner that the prosecution had not filed the sanction orderalong with the charge sheet is liable to be rejected and it isaccordingly rejected.11. It is also seen from the evidence of P.W.1 –S.Sundaresan, Assistant General Manager that P.W.1 has beenquestioned regarding his competency to give sanction to prosecutethe petitioner. The sanction orders have also been marked throughhim. Therefore, it is for the trial Court to consider from theevidence of P.W.1 and other connected materials available on recordas to whether the sanction order is valid or not. At this stage,this Court cannot go into the contested issue.12. The other contentions put forth by the learned counselfor the petitioner have to be considered only by appreciating theevidence on record and other documentary evidence produced by theprosecution and that can be done only by the trial Court and not bythis Court at this stage. 13. In AMOLAK SINGH CHHABRA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHreported in 2007(2) Crimes 222 (M.P.), paragraph-18, reads asfollows:-" 18. As the question of obtaining prior sanction forprosecution of a public servant is a mixed question offacts and law, and material collected by theinvestigating agency during investigation against thepresent petitioner are yet to be examined by the TrialCourt, therefore, this Court refrain from making anyobservations on the quality of evidence collected bythe prosecution regarding alleged offence or itsnature, so far as present petitioner is concerned, andleave this aspect of the matter with the Trial Court."14. Further, as pointed out above, the petitioner hasfiled the above quash petitions after the examination of sevenwitnesses and at the stage when the trial is almost coming to aclose and at this belated stage, the criminal original petitionsshould not be entertained by this Court. 15. In AMAR CHAND AGARWALA VS. SHANTI BOSE AND ANOTHERreported in AIR 1973 SUPREME COURT 799, it has been laid down asfollows:-" (A) Where the accused moved the High Court at thetime when the trial was almost coming to a close andwhat remained to be done was the examination of two https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ prosecution and one Court witnesses and the HighCourt quashed the charge and the entire proceedingson the grounds that the complainant suppressedmaterial facts and that the evidence on record didnot establish the alleged offence, the order wasliable to be set aside. The proper course at thatstage to be adopted by the High Court was to allowthe proceedings to go on and to come to its logicalconclusion, one way or the other, and decline tointerfere with those proceedings. The questionswhether there was suppression and whether theevidence established the alleged offence werematters to be considered by the trial Court after anappraisal of the entire evidence."16. The above said decision squarely applies to the factsof the present case. 17. Therefore, for the forgoing reasons, the abovecriminal original petitions fail and accordingly, they aredismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are alsodismissed.KbSd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.To1. The State rep. by The Inspector of Police SPE/CBI/ACB/Chennai.2. The Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases, High Court, Madras – 104.2 ccs to Mr.V.Ramana Reddy, Advocate, SR.70669.SJ (CO)dv/7.12.CRL.O.P.NOS.30366AND 30338 OF 2007