Mr.M.Kempraj in Crl.A.No.801 of 2004 (A.11) Mr.S.Subbulakshmi in Crl.A.No.711 of 2010 (A.9)For & Ors. v. Som Nath Thapa) and2007(1) SCC -1 (Parkash Singh Badal and Another & Ors.

Mr.T.Murugesan Senior Counsel for M/s.Kurien Associates in Crl.A.No.260 of 2004 (A.4) Mr.V.Balasubramanian in Crl.A.Nos.420 of 2004 and 691 of 2010 (A.1 and A.5) Mr.A.RaghunathanSenior Counsel in Crl.A.No.489 and 581 of 2004(A.7 and A.8) Mr.M.Kempraj in Crl.A.No.801 of 2004 (A.11) Mr.S.Subbulakshmi in Crl.A.No.711 of 2010 (A.9)For Respondents : Mr.N.Chandrasekaran Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases.ORDERThe final report was filed by the Inspector of Police-CBI,Chennai, totally against 15 accused for offences under Sections120-B r/w 420 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act. 2. The Accused 1 to 14 filed petitions before the trial Courtseeking discharge, but the petitions were dismissed. Aggrieved bythe said order, the petitioners have preferred the above criminalrevision petitions before this Court.3. It is brought to the notice of this Court now thatP.C.Shaw(A.1) and BMN.Rao (A.10) have died.4.

The case of the prosecution in brief is that crude oilproduced by ONGC at Ravva 10 and 17 Offshore platforms wererequired to be transported from Surasanyanam to H.P.C.L refnery at Vizag. Since the oil coordination committee recommended for thetransport of crude oil by sea route to avoid pollution and roadcongestion, ONGC invited open tenders to transport the crude oil bysea route. For this tender, a mimimum experience of two years ofsea transportation of petroleum products was fixed. The fifteenthaccused Victoria Marine Base Limited company was one among thecompanies responded the said tenders. But, it was not havingrequired minimum experience of two years. Accused 11 to 14represented M/s. Victoria Marine Base Ltd.,. Pending the saidtender process, the first accused-General Manager of ONGC, second https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ accused-General Manager (Finance and Administration) ONGC, thirdaccused General Manager (Maintenance) ONGC, 10th accused -GroupGeneral Manager, ONGC recommended and awarded a short term contractfor sea transportation of crude oil to 15th accused VMBL companywithout following any tender procedure or consolidating otherprospective bidder in the open tender.

The fourth accused,V.K.Ahuja, Regional Director – ONGC approved the recommendation ofthe tender committee to award the contract. A.1 to A.4 and A.10also allowed 0.68% transportation loss to the VMBL company againstthe standard transportation loss of 0.3%. The detailed work orderdated 05.02.1994, issued by the company was faxed to the 15thaccused but it was replaced by letter of indent antidated05.02.1994. The 15th accused company did not commence thetransportation work within 20 days from 05.02.1994 as conditionstipulated in the letter of indent and the delay was condoned andthe time was extended. 5. Due to inexperience of the accused company in operatingBarge in uncharted river and due to overloading of Barge, thevessel which was going on the river carrying crude oil ran aground. The ministry of petroleum and natural gas directed ONGC totransship and evacuate the crude oil to avoid pollution with theassistance of Coast Guard at the expense of ONGC contractors.

Thesalvage work was handed over to 'M/s.Essar shipping company'. Postdated cheques for Rs.12 lakhs instead of bank guarantee wasobtained from VMBL company towards its responsibility for paymenttowards Salvage operation. A stop payment of post dated cheque ofRs.12 lakhs was given and ONGC had to pay Rs.3,29,00,000/- to the Coast Guard to evacuate crude oil from the grounded barge of VMBL.ONGC had to pay Rs.11 lakhs to ESSAR for salvage of grounded Barge. By the act of the accused, ONGC incurred wrongful loss.6. All the learned Senior counsel and other counsel appearingfor the petitioners made their submissions and Mr.N.Chandrasekaran, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases was also heard.7. The arguments on behalf of the petitioners/accused aresummarised hereunder: Even taking the prosecution case as it is and accepting thedocuments submitted along with the final report, absolutely thereis no material to show that the accused with a criminal intentionacted in any manner to cheat anyone or conspired together for anypecuniary advantage of the 15th accused.

No pecuniary loss wascaused to the ONGC by any criminal intention of the accused. Therewas no malpractice in awarding the contract to the company fortransporting the crude oil by sea route and it was only under thecompulsory situation which necessitated awarding of short termcontract to the accused company. There is no prima facie materialto show any dishonest intention on the part of the accused Officersin awarding the contract. Only in urgent situation, the accused- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Officers acted with a bona fide intention. Only because the vesselhad grounded, the situation had become worse, otherwise everythingwould have been normal and there would not have been anypossibility of saying any pecuniary gain or loss to anyone. 8. It was further submitted on behalf of the petitioners thatthere are three stages in this case: (i) before awarding contract(ii) the execution of the contract (iii) Salvage operation afterthe mishap, i.e., vessel grounding.

All the accused before thecourt are not parties to the awarding of short term contract. Itis only A.1 to A.4 and A.10 are concerned with the awardingcontract to accused company A.15. Already 400 TPD crude oil wastransported by road tanker and HPCL did not agree to transport moreby road and as plan was worked out to produce oil 600 TPD to 700TPD, there was urgent necessity for transportation of oil by searoute. A decision was also taken by task force committee. Only inemergency situation, the short term contract decision was taken tosimilar contract being for HPCL. As the HPCL declined, thecontract was awarded to another company. There is no proceduralillegality and the steps were taken only on public interest andcertainly not against any public interest. The steps were taken asan immediate measure to examine the possibility of transport by searoute.9. It was submitted on behalf of A.5, that he had nothing todo with the awarding of contract and at latter stage he onlycondoned the delay in commencing the operation.

The contract was45 days, and the operation to be completed within 45 days. Furtherhe received post dated cheques instead of bank guarantees aftermishap. It was only an interim arrangement and subsequently thebank guarantee also had been given by the 15th accused company. The5th accused cannot be brought under conspiracy charge and he cannotbe found fault for awarding the contract. It was submitted onbehalf of the sixth accused that he being the General Manager, hewas appointed only for salvage operation after the vessel hadgrounded. He was only on the technical side and he had nothing todo with the awarding short term contract to the company and hecannot be brought under the conspiracy charge. 10. On behalf of the 7th and 8th accused, it was submitted thatthey were only Manager (Materials) and Deputy Manager (Materials)respectively and they had no role to play with the award of thecontract. They came into picture only long after the award of thecontract.

It was submitted on behalf of the 9th accused that he hadnothing to do with the award of the short term contract and he cameinto picture only at the stage of salvage operation.11. It was submitted on behalf of A.11 to A.14 Directors ofthe "Victory Marine Base Limited Company, that company had no rolein the decision taken by ONGC for transporting the crude oil by sea https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ route and the decision of the awarding short term contract was alsothe decision of the ONGC. It was only the committee which decidedthe short term contract. Only when the company was called throughletter, the company accepted the contract. The contract is alsogiven only with the consent of HPCL. The company did not have anyspecial advantage and only normal rate was fixed for transportationand it is not the case of the prosecution that any abnormal chargewas fixed. Though the transportation loss was fixed as 0.3%, asagainst the permitted transportation loss of 0.68% allowed totransport contractors.

VMBL company conveyed their acceptance tothe assignment and requested to allow it at 0.68% to road transportcontractors and only the committee of officers took intoconsideration various factors, the letters from VMBL and HPCLrecommending the transportation loss to be limited to 0.68%. Afterthe ship had grounded, only as interim measure the post dated chequewas given and subsequently bank guarantee had been furnished. Thehappenings following the incident of vessel grounding should not betaken into consideration to draw an inference for criminalintention. It is also submitted that A.13 and A.14 were femalemembers and A.12 was not the Director during the relevant period. It is further submitted that the loss was covered by the InsuranceCompany and the payment also has been made to the ONGC.12. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on thedecision reported in AIR 1996 SC 3390 = 1996 SCC (Cri.) 1025(C.Chenga Reddy and others v.

State of Andhra Pradesh) and 2002(1)SCC(Cri.) 310 (Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. State of Maharashtra).13. In addition, it is brought to the notice of this courtthat originally the sanction authority refused to grant sanction toprosecute against the public servants and subsequently bypersuading the authority sanction was obtained. According to thelearned counsel for the petitioners, the sanctioning authority haddeclined to grant sanction by well considered reasons, butsubsequently the authority was made to grant sanction even withoutany additional materials. The sanctioning authority on earlieroccasion having rejected to accord sanction on applying his mind, had granted sanction on pressure without any application of mindand as such sanction order suffers from infirmity and it isinvalid.14. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBICases, submitted that in order to show undue favour to ineligibleA.15 company and to make experience in sea route transport of crudeoil so as to make it eligible for long term contract under processfor the transport of crude oil, the accused public servants A.1 toA.4 and A.10 by violating the tender procedure awarded the short https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ term contract to 15th accused while the long term contract wereunder process.

There was no urgency for floating short termtender and A.15 company also did not commence the transportationprocess within 15 days and it was delayed for three months and thedelay also was subsequently condoned. The permitted standardcorporation loss in sea route transport for open tender was only0.3%. But in the short term contract, 0.68% was allowed in orderto show undue favour to A.15 company. The statement of LW-1,C.Pradeep Kumar shows the details of work order was substitutedwith one page letter of indent to show favour to A.1 to A.3. Theship being overloaded and as it was not following the safety normsran aground with the danger of crude oil spilling over the riverpolluting the environment. Further the officials of ONGC helpedA.15 company, arranged to pull the grounded barge at the expense ofONGC and engaged M/s. ESSAR ship company to pull out the groundedbarge. Though 10 post dated cheques were taken from A.15 company, after the work was offered, A.15 company instructed not to honourthe post dated cheques.

Ultimately ONGC had to pay about Rs.2.39Crores to Coast Guard and ESSAR shipping company, and thereby, losswas caused to ONGC. The learned Special Public Prosecutor furtheradded that the settlement of insurance claim will not absolve A.15company from the wrongful gain it made from the non-payment of itsdue to ONGC.15. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submittedthat the combined reading of the statement of witnesses and thedocuments filed along with the final report make out a prima faciecase against all the accused and the trial court also dismissed thepetitions of the accused seeking discharge after elaboratelyconsidering all the materials and the order of the trial court issustainable. Learned Special Public Prosecutor also relied on thedecision of the Honourable Supreme Court in 1996 SCC (Cri.) 820(State of Maharashtra and others vs. Som Nath Thapa and Others) and2007(1) SCC -1 (Parkash Singh Badal and Another vs.

State of Punjaband Others).16. This Court considered the submissions and perused therecords. From the statement of witnesses, in brief, it appearsthat a proposal was initiated for a long term contract fortransporting crude oil from one port to another and task force wasconstituted consisting some of the accused. The task forcedecided and recommended that the contractor should have threeyears experience and the collaborator should have two yearsexperience in marine transportation of crude oil and petroleumproducts and should furnish documentary evidence and underevaporation, handling loss from 0.3% to 0.5% can be allowed and thecontractor should have arranged comprensive blanket cargoinsurance on behalf of ONGC. Seven companies submitted their https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ offers and the tender committee accepted. While the long termcontract was in process M/s.Victory Marine Base Ltd., was offeredfor short term contract which in turn expressed willingness andapproval was sought to carry out job by M/s.Victory Marine BaseLimited at ONGC cost and ONGC to reimburse Rs.345/- per Metric Tonto HPCL for the quantity transported and to allow the ONGC to allowcontractors.

After the proposal was approved, a task force maderepresentation that M/s.Victory Marine Base Limited., was havingavalid contract with HPCL and they could be paid Rs.345/- per metricton . Letter of indent was issued for the above process. VMBL wasasked to mobilise the resources within 20 days, but there was adelay in arranging a barge and there was a request for condoningthe delay and the delay was condoned. Subsequently, barge whiletransporting oil ran aground on 12.05.1994. Immediate steps weretaken for transferring the oil cargo from the grounded barge andthe coast guard organised the transport and ONGC rendered all theassistance. On the request of ONGC salvage operation was carriedout by M/s.Essar Shipping. The work order was placed on M/s.EssarShipping for the salvation operation. Salvation operation was alsocarried out by M/s.Essar. VMBL undertook to pay the expenses ofM/s.Essar for salvaging the vessel and issued cheque for Rs.12lakhs for the salvage operation, but the cheque was not honoured bythe bank.17.

Based on the admitted facts and materials, both theprosecution and the defence have advanced their arguments. Thequestion that arises among both parties, "To Do" or "Not To Do". In support of "Not To Do", the points relied on by theprosecution are: (i) While ONGC wanted to enter into a long term contract for thetransportation of crude oil from one port to another short termcontract was arranged. (ii) M/s.Victory Marine Base Limited was not a qualified tranportoras they had entered into agreement with HPCL for road transportonly. (iii) The rate quoted was high in order. (iv) The average loss of percentage of account of evaporation wasoriginally fixed as 0.3% subsequently given as 0.68%. (v) The work order for short term and letter of indent were issuedon one and the same day. (vi) The Ministry wanted the cargo to be transported but withoutMinistry's permission, ONGC asked M/s.Essar Shipping to take thesalvage operation.

(vii) M/s.VMBL unauthorisedly stopped payment. (viii) ONGC had incurred loss of Rs.3 crores by way of handlingcharges. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ In support of "To Do", the points raised by the defence areas follows: (i) Necessity for transportation of crude oil through searoute: (a) Production of crude started in the Krishna Godawari Basin from March, 3rd 1993. Initially production was only 300 metric tonesonly. Later it was likely to go up to 600 metric tones per day. (b) HPCL complained that production was more than 400 tonnes andrefused to receive and store more than 400 tones. (c) Movement by road was threat to safety. The barge movement onturnkey was taken up for the first time. Representation was sentby HPCL by Ministry of Petroleum with the request for ONGC that setup Barge movement. Ministry of petroleum and natural gas gavedirection to ONGC to develop the facility of barge movement.

(ii) Short term contract: Finalisation of the parties on thebasis of tenders already invited would take time and meanwhilethere were practical compulsion for movement of oil by resorting toshort term measures. (iii) Long term contract had separate terms and conditions anddid not have any relevancy to the short term contract on turnkeybasis and Insurance cover was taken. (a) The awarding job work of VMBL was based on BSU guidelines. (b)VMBL was doing work for HPCL. (iv) Recommendations were given by the committee consisting of General Manager (Finance), General Manager (Management) and GeneralManager (Operations).(a) Transport loss was fixed as 0.3% fro sea transport and 0.68%allowed for road transport. HPCL stated evaporation loss increasedto 0.1% and another handling evaporation loss would be totally 0.7%for total evaporation loss. (b) VMBL conveyed their assignment of transportation they requestedto allow it at 0.68% to road transport contractors as against the0.3% offered by ONGC. On taking into consideration thedeliberations which the representatives of ONGC had with HPCL, thetransportation loss limit was fixed to 0.68%. (v) Why M/s.Essar Shipping was engaged for salvage operationof the grounded ship: (a) The Ministry of defence conveyed necessity to take immediatesteps to evacuate the crude oil from the grounded vessel to preventpollution.

(b) While the transshipment was entrusted to Coast Guard, M/s.EssarShipping was engaged to execute the job and VMBL gave anundertaking to guarantee payment. (c) The work order was placed on M/s.Essar Shipping by ONGC thatthe understanding VMBL will reimburse expenses, but M/s.Essar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Shipping could not succeed in its attempt. Subsequent to thefiling of the case, the Insurance Company had reimbursed to ONGC. 18. The point for determination is only whether the accusedhave acted with any mala fide intention and whether there is anyprima facie material to show that the accused have acted only withmala fide intention. Obviously, this Court feels that there is noprima facie material to show either officers of ONGC responsiblefor awarding the short term contract to VMBL, or the officers whowere responsible in salvage operation had mala fide intention. Hadthe vessels successfully moved the oil and reached the destination, everything would have been gone right and no question would havebeen asked.

It is the misfortune that the vessel of VMBL wasgrounded. Of course, it cannot be said that it was only due to the'Act of God', but was only due to the act of the company which hadno experience and due to overloading. Still it is not possible tosay that there was any bad intention on the part of the accused. The grounding of the vessel was not due to criminal act of theaccused. Even if the loss was caused in this case to ONGC, it isnot possible to say that the loss was due to the criminal act ofthe accused. The error of judgment in giving work to VMBLresulted in loss. At the time of awarding contract to VMBL, theofficers would not have imagined that the barge would run aground. Even if the officers have not followed the rules and regulationsand overacted, the facts available in this case do not justifycharging with criminal conspiracy against the accused. Though itis contended by the defence that at present, there is no loss tothe ONGC without considering the said fact, it is impossible to saythat the loss had arisen in this case only due to the criminal actof the ONGC officers.

The loss is not the criteria for decidingthe culpable mental state of the accused.19. It is not the case where direct malpractice being done andthe public servants indulging in the corruption activities. Evenon facts of the case, the ingredients of the offence under Section420 IPC are not made out, since no one had made falserepresentation to ONGC with the intention to cause loss to ONGC.The final report filed by the CBI also do not indicate anyone ofthe accused as particularly liable under Section 420 IPC. Thefinal report shows only common charge against all the accused thatthey are liable under Section 120-B r/w 420 IPC.20. It is surprising to this Court as to how some of theofficers who were not party to the act of awarding short termcontract to the 15th accused could be made as party to theconspiracy of cheating. There is no material to show that theofficers of the ONGC abused their official position intentionallyto cause pecuniary advantage to A.15 company or to cause pecuniaryloss to ONGC. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The learned Special Public Prosecutor relied on thedecision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2007-1 SCC 1(Parkash Singh Badal and another vs. State of Punjab and Others)wherein it has been held as follows: "44. Mere non-description of the offences in detailis really not material. At the stage of framingcharge it can be urged that no offence is made out. 45. With reference to the absence of allegationsunder Sections 8 and 9 of the Act, it is submittedwhether the charge-sheet has reference to anyparticular material referred to in it and therelevance of it is to be considered at the time whenthe charges is framed. It would not be desirable toanalyse minutely the materials as at that stage thecourt is primarily concerned with the question as towhether charge is to be framed in respect of anyoffence and whether prima facie there appearsexistence of any material and not the sufficiency ofthe materials........"The learned Special Public Prosecutor also relied onthe decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in1996 SCC (Cri.) 820 (State of Maharashtra vs. Som NathThapa and others) wherein it has been held a follows: "32. The aforesaid shows that if on the basis ofmaterials on record, a court could come to theconclusion that commission of the offence is probableconsequence, a case for framing of charge exists. Toput it differently, if the court were to think that theaccused might have committed the offence it can framethe charge, though for conviction the conclusion isrequired to be that the accused has committed theoffence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing ofa charge, probative value of the materials on recordcannot be gone into; the materials brought on record bythe prosecution has to be accepted as true at thatstage. "

Though it is contended by the learned Special PublicProsecutor placing reliance on the above decisions that at thetime of framing charge, a court cannot weigh by conducting a rovingenquiry, in this case, this Court is not making any roving enquiry, but only making an attempt to collect the materials which primafacie show that the accused have acted with the criminal intention, but unable to get any such material, except the irregularitiesbeing committed by the officers. Public servants must becurtailed from committing irregularities and action must be takenagainst them while such irregularities do result in loss, but atthe same time, they cannot be fastened with any criminal liability https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in the absence of any such material.

It is observed by the Honourable Supreme Court in thedecision reported in 1996 SCC (Cri.) 1205 (C.Chenga Reddy andothers v. State of Andra Pradesh) as follows: "That because of the actions of the appellants inbreach of codal provisions, instructions and proceduralsafeguards, the State may have suffered financially, particularly by allotment of work on nomination basiswithout inviting tenders, but those acts of omission andcommission by themselves do not establish the commissionof criminal offences alleged against them. "

In the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reportedin 2002(1) SCC (Cri.) 310 (Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. State of Maharashtra), it is held as follows: "12. Now the next question is whether a prima faciecase has been made out against the appellant. Inexercising powers under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the settled position of law is thatthe Judge while considering the question of framing thecharges under the said section has the undoubted powerto sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purposeof finding out whether or not a prima facie case againstthe accused has been made out; where the materialsplaced before the court disclose grave suspicion againstthe accused which has not been properly explained thecourt will be fully justified in framing a charge andproceeding with the trial; by and large if two views areequally possible and the Judge is satisfied that theevidence produced before him while giving rise to somesuspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully justified to discharge the accused, andin exercising jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure, the Judge cannot act merely as apost office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but hasto consider the broad probabilities of the case, thetotal effect of the evidence and the documents producedbefore the court but should not make a roving enquiryinto the pros and cons of the matter and weigh theevidence as if he was conducting a trial. (see 1979 SCC(Cri) 609 -Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal)"- (emphasis added)

In the decision reported in 1977 SCC (Cri.) 404 (State of Karnataka vs. L.Muniswamy and Others), it has been held as follows: "10. On the other hand, the decisions cited bylearned counsel for the respondents in Vadilal Panchalv. D.D.Ghadigaoinkar (AIR 1960 SC 1113) and CenturySpinning and Manufacturing Co. v. State of Maharashtra https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (AIR 1972 SC 545) show that it is wrong to say thatat the stage of framing charges the court cannot applyits judicial mind to the consideration whether or notthere is any ground for presuming the commission ofthe offence by the accused. As observed in the lattercase, the order framing a charge affects a person'sliberty substantially and therefore it is the duty ofthe court to consider judicially whether the materialwarrants the framing of the charge. It cannot blindlyaccept the decision of the prosecution that theaccused be asked to face a trial. In Vadi Panchal'scase, Section 203 of the old Code was underconsideration, which provided that the Magistratecould dismiss a complaint if after considering certainmatters mentioned in the section there was in hisjudgment no sufficient ground for proceeding with thecase. To an extent Section 327 of the new Codecontains an analogous power which is conferred on the Sessions Court. It was held by this Court, whileconsidering the true scope of Section 203 of the oldCode that the Magistrate was not bound to accept theresult of an enquiry or investigation and that he mustapply his judicial mind to the material on which hehad to form his judgment. These decisions show thatfor the purpose of determining whether there issufficient ground for proceeding against an accusedthe court possess a comparatively wider discretion inthe exercise of which it can determine the questionwhether the material on the record, if unrebutted, issuch on the basis of which a conviction can be saidreasonably to be possible. "

Though the prosecution has made an attempt to throwsuspicion on the part of the accused resting upon theirregularities and defaults committed by accused, as the materialswhich relied on by the prosecution are inadequate to frame anycharge against the accused, the proceedings against all the accusedin C.C.No.8 of 1999, on the file of the Principal Special Judge forCBI Cases are quashed.

All the Criminal Revision Cases are allowed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar.ksr https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.The Inspector of Police, Special Police Establishment, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-corruption Branch, Chennai 600 006.2.The Principal Special Judge CBI Cases, Chennai.3. The Spl. Public Prosecutor, CBI Cases2 ccs to Mrs. S. Subbulakshmi, Advocate, Sr. 554352 cc to Mr.V. Balasubramanian and Associates, Advocate, Sr. 556491 cc to M/s. Lakshmipriya, Associates, Advocate, Sr. 556723 ccs to Mr. Sivanand and Associates, Advocate, Sr. 55673, 55674,556751 cc to M/s. Kurian Associates, Sr. 555811 cc to Mr.M. Kempraj, Advocate, Sr. 558523 ccs to M/s. AL. Gandhimathi, Advocate, Sr. 558682 ccs to Mr.A. Raghunathan, Advocate, Sr. 55969, 559701 cc to Mr. N. Chandrasekaran, Advocate, Sr. 55836CRL.R.C.Nos.88 to 90,107, 173 to 175, 260, 420, 489, 581 and 801 of 2004, Crl.R.C.Nos.691 and 711 of 2010LA. TS (CO)kk 15/9