Dismissed

P.S.K.Singaravelu (M/59 Years) v. the Deputy Superintendent

Madras HC9 Feb 2018CRL OP/1258/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a final report in a corruption charge regarding fabrication of work completion notes. The court held that the prosecution case established a prima facie case and facts were reserved for trial.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition and connected miscellaneous petitions dismissed.

P.S.K.Singaravelu (M/59 Years) Vs the Deputy Superintendent — Corruption | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 09.02.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.1258 of 2018

¶6

and Crl.M.P.Nos.446 & 447 of 2018

¶7

P.S.K.Singaravelu ... Petitioner/3^rd accused Vs.

¶8

The Deputy Superintendent of Police Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Chennai City-I Department, R.A.Puram, Chennai-600 028. (Crime No.02/2012/AC/CC-IV) ... Respondent/Complainant

¶9

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in CC No.10 of 2017 and quash the final report dated 31.08.2016 on the file of the Special Court for exclusive trial of Prevention of Corruption Act cases, Chennai.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr. A.E.Ravichandran M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.P.Govindarajan Additional Public Prosecutor

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.10 of 2017 dated 31.08.2016, on the file of the Special Court for exclusive trial of Prevention of Corruption Act cases, Chennai.

¶14

2 According to the petitioner, while he was serving as the Under Secretary in the Secretariat of Legislative Assembly, during November 2010 to March 2011, there was a proposal to carry out painting work for 166 Steel Book racks and 29 Wooden Book Almirahs in the Legislative Assembly Library for a total value of Rs.3,90,400/-. Though the work was not at all commenced, Mr. S.Balakrishnan, who is arrayed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ as A2, put up a note as if A5 has completed the painting work

¶15

and the same was approved by the present petitioner and A4K.Indira, Joint Secretary. However, due to commencement of election, the code of conduct was imposed and the proposal was forwarded from the Finance Department to the Election Commission, who in turn had forwarded the same to the State to defer the proposal till the General Elections for the year 2011 pertaining to State of Tamil Nadu and hence, the proposal was deferred. Later it came to notice of the prosecution agency that without completion of the work, Note has been prepared for payment of Rs.3,90,400/- as if work has been executed. Hence, the case was registered under Sections 120-B, 420, 477-A, 511 r/w Section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. This complaint upon further investigation under culminated in filing final report.

¶16

3 The petitioner relying upon the statement recorded under 161 of LW.3/Baskaran that due to the pressure and threat of A1 & A2, other accused signed the Note File without the actual completion of work. These facts are matter for trial and this Court cannot quash the case on these materials, when the prosecution was made out prima facie case against this petitioner.

¶17

4 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that it is not only increminating statement, there are other witnesses who have spoken about the conspiracy and the subsequent acts done by the petitioner and other accused, in cheating the Government by raising a bill for the work which was not done.

¶18

5 In the light of the facts stated above, this Court finds no reason to interfere by entertaining the petition, more particularly, the prosecution case is that the petitioner and others have admitted to commit an offence referred under Section 30(i)(c) & (b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶19

6 Accordingly, the Criminal Original petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition are also dismissed.

-s/d-

Assistant Registrar

True Copy

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶24

rpl

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

1.The Special Judge,

¶28

The Prevention of Corruption Act cases, Chennai.

¶29

The Deputy Superintendent of Police Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Chennai City-I Department, R.A.Puram, Chennai-600 028.

¶30

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. Crl.O.P.No.1258 of 2018

¶31

KP(27/02/2018)

¶32

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

P.S.K.Singaravelu (M/59 Years) v. the Deputy Superintendent

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.S.K.Singaravelu (M/59 Years) v. the Deputy Superintendent

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

State Rep. by, Vs Tr.S.Venugopal

S.Kumari, Aged 40 Years, Vs State Rep. by

Dr.C.Swaminathan Vs the State Rep.by

P.Purusothaman Vs the State Rep by

The State Rep. by Vs Tr.P.Kumaresan, Aged 64 Years

Mani Vs State by Deputy Superintendent