In a criminal revision, the High Court dismissed the petition filed to set aside the order dismissing the discharge application in a corruption case involving alleged cheating by delivery of gold without receiving funds. The court found no infirmity in the trial court's order.
The petition was dismissed. No specific relief was granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 22.12.2014
Date of decision: 10.03.2015
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN
Criminal Revision Case No.1049 of 2014
G.Guruswamy ... Petitioner/Petitioner Accused No.1 vs. State by Inspector of Police, CBI/ACB, Chennai at Sastri Bhavan Haddows Road, Chennai. ... Respondent/Respondent/ Complainant PRAYER : Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to set aside the order dated 29.9.2014 passed in Crl.M.P.No.645 of 2013 in C.C.No.36 of 2013 by the IX Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.S.Mahadevan For respondent: Mr.K.Srinivasan, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases O R D E R
The revision petitioner was arrayed as A.1 in C.C.No.36 of 2013 on the file of the IX Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Cehnnai. He filed Crl.M.P.No.645 of 2013 seeking discharge from the case and the petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed.
that admittedly, in Document No.48, the signature of the petitioner was not found and it was only stated that A.2 had discussion with the petitioner and except the self-serving statement of A.2, there was no material to connect the petitioner that on his instruction, gold was supplied to M/s. Surana Corporation Limited. He also submitted that there was no mention of pecuniary loss to MMTC Limited on account of delivery of 30kgs of gold to M/s. Surana Corporation Limited. MMTC Limited received Rs.5.38 crores on 14.5.2008 for delivery of 30 kgs of gold on 13.5.2008. He also submitted that the trial Court erred in relying upon section 161 Cr.P.C statement recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation and without properly appreciating that there was no material against the petitioner and on the basis of surmises and conjectures, the petitioner was charge sheeted and therefore, the case is liable to be quashed.
Limited and at that time, there was no surplus fund to the credit of M/s. Surana Corporation Limited. It is not in dispute that on 7.5.2008, A.4 by his letter requested MMTC Limited to supply 30 kgs of gold stating that M/s. Surana Corporation Limited has got surplus amount to their credit. A.1 was employed as the Chief General Manager of MMTC Limited at the relevant point of time and as per the note of A.2, 30 kgs of gold was delivered on 13.5.2008 to A.4 without obtaining any amount. In the note put up by A.2, he has mentioned that he discussed with CGM, namely, the petitioner. Though the petitioner has not signed or acknowledged the note prepared by A.2, LW 27 has stated during investigation that when the note was signed by A.2 and marked to him, before approval, he contacted the petitioner and the petitioner told him to deliver 30 kgs of gold as there was surplus amount of Rs.4.30 crores on the account of A.3 M/s. Surana Corporation Limited and LW.27 signed the delivery on the instruction of A.1 as confirmed by A.2. Though in Document No.48, it is stated that the surplus amount of Rs.4.50 crores available, it was not available on that date. Therefore, as per the statement of LW 27, the note by A.2 was made with the concurrence and the knowledge of the petitioner and that would raise a strong suspicion in the role of the petitioner in the commission of the offence. As per the statement of LW.5, each bullion transaction has to be separate and excess payment from the party for the first transaction is to be squared up immediately before going for 2nd transaction.
asvm
To
1.The IX Additional Special Judge
for CBI Cases, Chennai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
CBI/ACB, Chennai at
Sastri Bhavan
Haddows Road,
Chennai.
3.The Special Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+ 1 cc to Mr.K.S.Mahadevan, Advocate SR.13323
BVR(CO)
EU 21.03.2015
Criminal Revision Case
No.1049 of 2014
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Special Leave Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 CrPC to set aside the order dismissing discharge application deserves to be allowed.
Whether there are any infirmities in the order of the learned trial Judge dismissing the discharge petition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
G.Guruswamy
State by Inspector of Police, CBI/ACB, Chennai
R.S.Ramanathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
