Allowed

R.Kumar v. the Deputy Superintendent of

Madras HC21 Jan 2013CRL A(MD)/241/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court set aside the conviction judgment acknowledging that the sanction order was based on total non-application of mind as the sanctioning authority did not receive relevant material documents despite knowledge that related communications were forwarded.

What did the court decide?

The judgment dated 03.08.2011 in C.C.No.70 of 1995 is hereby set aside and the criminal appeals are allowed.

R.Kumar Vs the Deputy Superintendent of — Corruption | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BAIL SLIP

¶3

MP(MD)No.1/11 in Crl.A.No.241/2011:

¶4

The accused namely, R.Kumar was directed to be released on bail as per order of this court dated.1718/2011.

¶5

MP(MD)No.1/11 in Crl.A.No.242/2011:

¶6

The accused namely, A.Baskaran, was directed to be released on bail as per order of this court dated.1718/2011.

¶7

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶8

DATED : 21.01.2013

¶9

CORAM

¶10

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM

¶11

Criminal Appeal(MD)Nos.241 & 242 of 2011

¶12

1.R.Kumar .. Appellant in Crl.A.No.241 of 2011/Accused No.1 2.A.Baskaran .. Appellant in Crl.A.No.242 of 2011/Accused No.2

¶13

Vs.

¶14

State rep. By The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, Ramanathapuram.

¶15

(V&AC.Cr.No.1/94) ..Respondent in both Crl.As/Complainant

¶16

COMMON PRAYER: Criminal Appeals are filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the judgment passed in Special C.C.No.70 of 1995 dated 03.08.2011 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram and set aside the same and acquit the appellant/accused from the charges leveled against him.

¶17

For Petitioners:: Mr.N.R.Elango Senior counsel for

¶18

Mr.R.Venkateswaran

¶19

For Respondent :: Mr.K.Anbarasan

¶20

Govt. Advocate(Crl. Side)

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

The appellants have preferred the present Criminal Appeal against the judgment dated 03.08.2011 in C.C.No.70 of 1995 passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram towards setting aside the same and praying that the appellants/accused be acquitted.

¶23

2.The case of the prosecution is that the first accused worked as Junior Assistant and the second accused as Office Assistant in the office of the District Employment Office, Ramanathapuram. During third week of October 1994, one Murugesan P.W.2, who had lost his Employment Registration Card which was registered in the year 1991, approached the office of the accused. P.W.2 met the first accused and requested him to issue a new card after renewal. The first accused instructed him to bring his degree certificate in order to verify the details of his registration number and the date. On 26.10.1994, P.W.2 went to the office along with his provisional degree certificate No. 763/1991 dated 11.03.1991. After seeing the provisional certificate, the first accused informed P.W.2 that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the period for renewal had lapsed and it was not possible to renew his registration. P.W.2 told the first accused that he had produced his

¶24

¶25

provisional certificate only eight or nine months after his original registration. Thereafter, the first accused directed P.W.2 to give a representation. P.W.2 gave Ex.P.2 requisition on 26.10.94. On receipt of Ex.P.2 the first accused called for the file and verified the same and informed P.W.2 that the period for renewal had lapsed and it was not possible to renew his registration and issue a new card. The first accused asked P.W.2 to register afresh. P.W.2 pleaded that from 1982 he was renewing his employment card. The first accused told him that if that be so, P.W.2's card could be renewed and directed him to meet the second accused. The second accused demanded a sum of Rs.300/- from P.W.2 to renew his card. P.W.2 informed him that he did not have money. The second accused directed him to bring Rs.300/-. On 16.11.1994, once again P.W.2 went to the office of the accused. P.W.3 also was then present at the office. Both the accused asked them to wait outside. Thereafter, the second accused came out and asked P.W.2 to submit the requisition after changing the date thereof. P.W.2 informed the second accused, that Ex.P.2 requisition was damaged and that he would give fresh requisition. Once again, P.W.2 gave a requisition and the second accused demanded money. P.W.2 pleaded for reduction of the sum demanded and the second accused refused. The second accused returned the said requisition to P.W.2 and asked him to meet him after two days. P.W.2, not inclined to part with the bribe, preferred a complaint on 18.11.1994 at 10.15 hours to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption wing and a case in Cr.No.1 of 1994 was registered by P.W.10-Inspector of Police. Following due procedure a successful trap was conducted. On completion of investigation and on obtaining sanction, the case came to be tried in C.C.No.70/1995 against the first appellant for offences under Section 201 r/w 511 I.P.C. and against second appellant under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, r/w 34 I.P.C Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(D) P.C.Act r/w 34.

¶26

3.Heard Mr.N.R.Elango Senior counsel for Mr.R.Venkateswaran appearing for the petitioners and Mr.K.Anbarasan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent.

¶27

4.These appeals are to be allowed on the sole ground that there can be no better instance of sanction order disclosing total non-application of mind. Ex.D.1 reflects the position that under communication dated 07.09.1995, the Director of Employment and Training, Chepauk, Madras-5 informed that as the District Employment Officer was a witness in the case, it might not be proper for him to sanction prosecution of the accused persons and therefore, the next higher authority, the Regional Deputy Director(Employment) Madurai, may be required to issue sanction. Referring to such letter, the Joint Director(Employment) had addressed the Regional Deputy Director(Employment) Madurai, under communication dated 15.09.1995. The model sanction order and FIR had been forwarded to the Regional Deputy Director(Employment) Madurai, who was requested to issue the sanction order. He was also required to forward the sanction order to the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption in Triplicate. The said Regional Deputy Director(Employment) Madurai, by name A.Kanthimathinathan has been examined as PW1. In cross, he has admitted to receiving Ex.D.1 and that excepting documents enclosed therewith, no other documents were forwarded to him. The only documents, (apart from earlier departmental communications), forwarded to P.W.1 thereunder were the model sanction order and the FIR. Therefore, it is apparent that the sacrasanct act of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ according sanction has been effected on total non-application of mind and without perusal of relevant material. The order of sanction as also all proceedings pursuant there to would fall to the ground. These appeals

¶28

¶29

stands allowed and the judgment dated 03.08.2011 in C.C.No.70 of 1995 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram is hereby set aside.

¶30

Sd/Deputy Registrar /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar

¶31

¶32

1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram.

¶33

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-corruption Department, Ramanathapuram 3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶34

+2C.C. to M/s.S.Ravi, Advocate in Sr.No.2455. Criminal Appeal (MD) Nos.241 & 242 of 2011 21.01.2013

¶35

¶36

PBK 21/05/2013 3P/6C

¶37

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

R.Kumar v. the Deputy Superintendent of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Kumar v. the Deputy Superintendent of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Thangarajan Vs the Inspector of Police

N.Sikkandar Mydeen, Vs the Inspector of Police

Viji, Vs the Inspector of Police

Manikandan @ Thirumaran Vs the Inspector of Police

Laila @ Fathima Vs the Sub-Inspector of Police

A.Periyakaruppan Vs the Inspector of Police