In 2023, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh of the Madras Excessive Court docket took up as many as six suo motu felony revision petitions towards the acquittal/discharge of various politicians from numerous felony instances. The primary case through which a verdict was delivered on February 26, 2024 turned out to be that of Rural Growth Minister I. Periyasamy.
What’s the cost towards the Minister?
The incumbent Minister for Rural Growth I. Periyasamy of Dindigul, had served as Minister for Housing in the course of the earlier DMK regime between 2006 and 2011. In March 2008, he had allotted a Tamil Nadu Housing Board’s (TNHB) ‘High Income Group’ plot beneath the Mogappair Eri Scheme to C. Ganesan who was the private safety officer (PSO) to then Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi. The plot was allotted beneath the State authorities’s discretionary quota by terming the beneficiary an “impeccable and honest government servant.”
After the DMK misplaced energy in 2011 and the AIADMK returned to the treasury benches, the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC) registered a First Data Report (FIR) in February 2012 after discovering that there was one thing severely amiss concerning the method through which the allotment was made.
Based on the DVAC, the previous PSO, serving within the rank of Inspector of Police within the Particular Department-Prison Investigation Division’s (SB-CID) core cell, had given an undated utility addressed to the then Chief Minister for allotment of the TNHB plot to him. Within the utility, he had made a false declare of residing at a personal home on cost of an exorbitant lease, though he was truly residing on the TNHB residential quarters in Ok.Ok. Nagar in Chennai, for a month-to-month lease of ₹1,180.
The applicant had not enclosed any doc to help his declare; neither did it bear the seal or signature of any officer to acknowledge receipt. But, it was numbered 5732/HB-5(I)/08 by the Housing Growth Division on March 6, 2008 and an workplace notice was initiated on the identical day with a suggestion that Plot No.1023 within the ‘HIG’ class within the Mogappair Eri Scheme be allotted to him.
This utility was signed by the Housing and City Growth Secretary R. Sellamuthu on March 7, 2008 and was accredited by the Miniser on March 10, 2008 when a Authorities Order was additionally issued at break-neck velocity allotting the plot to the applicant. On March 18, 2008, TNHB issued a provisional allotment order and requested the beneficiary to pay ₹74.13 lakh on or earlier than March 31, 2008.
Even earlier than the provisional allotment was made, Ganesan entered right into a joint growth settlement with actual property developer Kavitha on March 16, 2008. As per the settlement, Kavitha would pay ₹74.13 lakh as a non refundable deposit and likewise allot 15% of the Undivided Share (UDS) to Ganesan after retaining the remaining 85%
Accordingly, Kavitha issued a cheque dated March 24, 2008 in favour of the Govt Engineer, TNHB, Mogappair Division. This cheque was despatched by Ganesan to the Govt Engineer on March 27, 2008 and an everyday allotment order was issued in his favor on March 28, 2008. Thus, the complete course of commencing with the numbering of an undated utility on March 6, 2008 took simply 22 days to culminate into the issuance of an everyday allotment order.
On August 7, 2008, the TNHB Govt Engineer executed a sale deed in favour of Ganesan who, in flip, executed an influence of legal professional in favour of Kavitha on January 19, 2009. The facility of legal professional was registered with the Konnur Sub Registrar on January 23, 2009. Utilizing this energy, Kavitha bought the plot to a person Kalaiammal for a consideration of ₹1.01 crore and issued a cheque for ₹19.66 lakh in favour of Ganesan, for his 15% UDS. The cheque was encashed by Ganesan on July 20, 2009.
The DVAC had arrayed Ganesan, Kavitha and Mr. Periyasamy as the primary, second and third accused individuals respectively within the FIR registered beneath the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), 1988 in addition to provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Investigating Officer R. Murali examined 22 witnesses, collected 45 paperwork and filed a charge-sheet earlier than a particular courtroom for PCA instances in Chennai on March 25, 2013.
The charge-sheet was filed after acquiring the sanction to prosecute Mr. Periyasamy from P. Dhanabal, then Speaker of the Legislative Meeting, on December 17, 2012. The particular courtroom for PCA instances took cognisance of the case on June 24, 2013 and ordered summons to be issued to the accused individuals for the listening to on August 19, 2013.
Why did the Excessive Court docket take suo motu discover of the case?
Justice Venkatesh, holding the MP/MLA portfolio within the Excessive Court docket, had taken up the suo motu revision on September 8, 2023, after expressing shock over the way in which through which a particular courtroom for MP/MLA instances in Chennai had discharged Mr. Periyasamy from the corruption case on March 17, 2023 after he grew to become Minister as soon as once more in 2021.
The choose took notice that each one the three accused had appeared via their counsel on August 19, 2013 earlier than the particular courtroom for PCA instances and had been served with the fabric paperwork. Nonetheless, on September 4, 2013, the primary accused particular person Ganesan filed a discharge petition earlier than the particular courtroom, which dismissed the petition on August 6, 2015. When the matter was listed for framing of fees on August 31, 2015, the second accused particular person Kavitha filed a discharge petition, which additionally acquired dismissed on January 12, 2016.
After the primary two accused individuals extended the case by submitting discharge petitions one after one other, the third accused particular person, the Minister, filed a discharge petition on February 25, 2016 contending that the sanction to prosecute him ought to have been obtained from the Governor and never the Speaker of the Legislative Meeting. The particular courtroom rejected his rivalry and dismissed the discharge plea on July 6, 2016.
“Thus, ended the three-year saga before the special court where A1 to A3 were playing musical chairs by filing discharge petitions one after another,” Justice Venkatesh mentioned and identified that thereafter, the centre-stage moved to the Excessive Court docket the place the accused individuals filed revision petitions in 2016 towards the particular courtroom’s refusal to discharge them.
Although no keep was granted for the conduct of the trial, the third accused particular person efficiently persuaded the Excessive Court docket to move an order on July 22, 2016 calling for the data of the case from the particular courtroom for PCA instances. “The result was that the entire proceedings before the special court stood neutralized,” Justice Venkatesh lamented.
For the reason that data had been transmitted to the Excessive Court docket, the particular courtroom needed to merely adjourn the listening to within the corruption case for as many as 34 hearings until June 28, 2019. On July 5, 2019, the matter was transferred from the particular courtroom for PCA instances to the particular courtroom for MP/MLA instances which was created on the orders of the Supreme Court docket for quick monitoring felony instances towards legislators. After this switch, the particular courtroom for MP/MLA instances wrote to the Excessive Court docket on September 3, 2019 requesting transmission of the case bundle and accordingly, this was returned on October 19, 2019.
“The special court for MP/MLA cases appears to have perfectly seen through the game plan of the accused,” the choose mentioned and identified that it had insisted on the presence of all three of them on December 4, 2019 and framed fees towards them. In March 2020, Mr. Periyasamy and Ganesan moved the Excessive Court docket difficult the framing of fees towards them and obtained an interim keep of all proceedings earlier than the particular courtroom.
“Much to the relief of the accused, COVID-19 intervened and the proceedings were deferred from time to time,” the choose mentioned. The interim keep order handed by the Excessive Court docket expired on July 16, 2021 and was not prolonged thereafter. Due to this fact, the particular courtroom determined to look at the previous Speaker P. Dhanabal however discovered that the DVAC officers had not cared to serve the summons to the witnesses since 2019. It obtained an enterprise from the police to make sure that the summons get served.
Within the meantime, the Excessive Court docket on October 29, 2021 reserved orders on the felony revision petitions filed by the accused difficult the refusal to discharge them and likewise the costs framed towards them. Whereas reserving orders, it directed the particular courtroom to take care of establishment after observing that the orders can be delivered shortly. Nonetheless, it took 11 months for the Excessive Court docket to pronounce its orders on November 11, 2022 dismissing all of the revision petitions. Although Mr. Periyasamy moved the Supreme Court docket towards the dismissal, he withdrew his particular go away petition on December 12, 2022.
The DMK had returned to energy in Could 2021 and Mr. Periyasamy grew to become a Minister once more. “It is seen from the records of the special court that there was a change in guard in May 2022 when the earlier judge who had unsuccessfully persevered to conduct trial was moved out and another successor was directed to assume charge,” Justice Venkatesh mentioned and located that the particular courtroom had issued a summons to Mr. Dhanabal and examined him on February 15, 2023 thus marking the graduation of trial.
After the trial had commenced, the Minister filed a second petition for discharge on February 2023 on the identical grounds that he had raised earlier. This time, it discovered favour with the particular courtroom which heard the petition inside 21 days and handed an order on March 17, 2023 discharging the Minister from the case. Discovering, prima facie, that the discharge order suffered from manifest illegality, the Excessive Court docket had taken up a revision towards it suo motu.
How did the suo motu proceedings finish?
After ordering discover to the DVAC in addition to the Minister within the suo motu proceedings, Justice Venkatesh heard elaborate arguments superior by Advocate Basic P.S. Raman for the investigating company and senior counsel Ranjit Kumar and A. Ramesh for the Minister. He appreciated the A-G for taking a good stand that the second discharge petition filed by the Minister in the course of the course of the trial was not maintainable and put aside the discharge order on February 26, 2024.
On discovering that the case had acquired transferred from the particular courtroom for MP/MLA instances to the particular courtroom for PCA instances after the discharge of the Minister, the choose ordered re-transfer of the case to the particular courtroom for legislators inside a month so that each one three accused individuals may face a trial. He directed all three of them to seem earlier than the particular courtroom for MP/MLA instances on March 28, 2024 and furnish a bond for ₹1 lakh every with two sureties. Additional, ordering conduct of the trial on a day-to-day foundation, so far as practicable, he mentioned, the trial should be accomplished earlier than July 31, 2024 and a progress report should be submitted to the Excessive Court docket’s Registrar Basic thereafter.
If the accused individuals adopted any dilatory techniques, the particular courtroom may summon and remand them to judicial custody, the choose wrote, whereas permitting the suo motu revision.