4.The stand of the petitioners is that during this period, the Transport Minister made a number of visits to Kumbakonam along with his entourage. Even the dates have been specifically mentioned. The Minister is said to have been visited Kumbakonam on 05.11.2008, 17.12.2008, 03.01.2009, 04.02.2009, 05.05.2009 and 29.06.2009. It has been convincingly brought out that the Managing Director was authorised to sanction expenditure on entertainments at the instance of the Corporation during the visits of VIPs to Kumbakonam. It cannot be denied that the Transport Minister is a VIP. Therefore, when the Managing Director/A11 in this case had sanctioned the expenditure, the petitioners herein cannot be blamed for preparing the bills and vouchers. It is not the case of the prosecution that the meetings were never conducted. Of course, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would point out that even agenda was not prepared, but this fact is rebutted by the petitioners' counsel who would point out that the question of preparing agenda would arise only for Board meetings. When the Transport Minister makes a visit, certain basic arrangements will have to be necessarily made. Only to make out the expenditure, the impugned bills and vouchers were prepared by the petitioners herein. It is not the case of the prosecution that there was any falsification of record or that the petitioners herein had pocketed the moneys of the corporation. Looked at from any angle, no offence is made out. The proceedings in Special Case No.5 of 2018, on the file of the Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act cases, Tiruchirappalli, stand quashed.
