Dismissed

Dr.R.Radhakrishnan v. a.Muraleetharan

Madras HC2 Nov 2021CONT P/1495/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court addressed a contempt petition filed against a Special Judge for allegedly delaying the disposal of a corruption case contrary to a prior High Court order granting six months. The Court accepted the Judge's explanation regarding pending applications and witness issues, granted an additional six-month extension, and dismissed the contempt petition.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for grant of six months time is granted to dispose of Spl.C.C.No.9/2013 within six months.

Dr.R.Radhakrishnan Vs a.Muraleetharan — Corruption | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

Cont.P.No.1495 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 02.11.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

Contempt Petition No.1495 of 2016

¶7

Dr.R.Radhakrishnan, No.16/52, Bharathi Park, Cross II, Sibaba Colony, Coimbatore 11 ... Petitioner

¶8

-vs-

¶9

A.Muraleetharan, Special Judge, Special Court under Prevention of Corruption Act, Coimbatore. ... Respondent

¶10

Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts

¶11

Act to punish the respondent for his willful disobedience to comply with the

¶12

orders of this Court dated 24.11.2015 made in W.A.No.588/2014.

¶13

For Petitioner : Dr.R.Radhakrishnan,

¶14

Party-in-person For Respondent : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan

¶15

ORDER

¶16

(Order of the Court was made by T.RAJA.J)

¶17

The petitioner has filed this Contempt Petition against the Special

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Judge, Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Coimbatore,

¶19

Cont.P.No.1495 of 2016

¶20

for the willful disobedience and non-compliance of the order passed by this Court in W.A.No.588/2014 in and by which while dismissing the said writ appeal, the learned Single Judge, has directed the trial court to dispose of the Spl.C.C.No.9/2013 within six months.

¶21

Insofar as the Spl.C.C.No.9/2013 is concerned, admittedly, there were 136 witnesses cited by the prosecution. When the charge sheet was received on 02.11.2016, the Special Court has framed the charges on 11.01.2017. Though this Court in W.A.No.588/2014 by an order dated 09.03.2015 has granted six months time to dispose of the Spl.C.C.No.9/2013, as the prosecution has listed out 136 witnesses, in view of the long list of the witnesses, the Special Court was unable to complete

¶22

the trial within the stipulated time. In the meanwhile, the Spl.C.C.No.10/2012 was disposed of by finding the petitioner guilty under Sections 7 and 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Consequently, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Aggrieved thereby,

¶23

Cont.P.No.1495 of 2016

¶24

Crl.A.No.771/2016 was filed before this Court. The same was also dismissed by judgment dated 04.12.2017, thereby confirming the judgment of the Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Aggrieved against, the petitioner has taken up the matter to the Apex Court and the same is still pending.

¶25

Therefore, as the petitioner has been found guilty and sentenced to undergo the punishment as stated supra, Mr.Ramadhas, the learned Special Judge, in his letter dated 29.10.2021 has asked for six more months time citing multiple reasons that firstly, the petitioner has filed a petition under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. seeking return of documents and the same is pending in CMP.No.589/2013; secondly, one Matheswaran/3^rd party filed a petition to issue 'No Objection Certificate' for registering the sale deed in respect of the properties of the 2^nd accused Amirthasanjivi and the same is also pending in CMP.No.263/2015; thirdly, the police also filed an application under Section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 1944 to attach the properties related to this case and the same is also pending in CMP.No.187/2016; fourthly, 136 witnesses were cited as witnesses in the charge sheet and out of them, P.W.1 to P.W.6 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 were marked and due to covid 19

¶26

pandemic situation, further witnesses could not be examined; and fifthly, it https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ has been stated by Mr.M.Ramadhas, Special Judge under the Prevention of

¶27

Cont.P.No.1495 of 2016

¶28

Corruption Act that he has been transferred and posted as Special Judge for Special Court for cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Coimbatore and he has taken charge of the above court on 02.09.2021 and the High Court of Madras in ROC.No.74304/2021-B2, 70915-A/2021-B2 and 79730/2021-B2 and Notification No.234/2021 dated 15.09.2021 has conferred powers to him for trying the cases under the prevention of Corruption Act, with effect from the date on which he took full additional charge of the post of Special Judge.

¶29

Under such circumstances, since the petition filed under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. seeking return of the documents is pending in CMP.No.589/2013 that one Magheswaran/3^rd party has filed a petition to issue, 'No Objection Certificate' for registering the sale deed in respect of the properties of the 2^nd accused Amirthasanjivi and the same is pending in CMP.No.263/20915 and that the police also filed an application under Section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 1944 to attach the properties related to this Court in CMP.No.187/2016, without disposing of all these petitions, the trial could not have taken place. More over, 136 witnesses had to be examined. In the meanwhile, the unfortunate Covid-19 has intervened and as a result, the lawyers were unable to take part in the physical hearing. Only very recently, the High Court has permitted the trial https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ courts and subordinate courts to come back to the physical hearing as the

¶30

Cont.P.No.1495 of 2016

¶31

normalcy is limbing gradually, therefore, we are unable to find any merit on this Contempt Petition.

¶32

More over, the request made by Mr.M.Ramadhas, Special Judge, Special Court for trial of Prevention of Corruption Act, Coimbatore, seeking extension of time to dispose of Spl.C.C.No.9/2013 cannot be refused, therefore, the prayer for grant of six months time is granted. Since the charges were framed on 11.01.2017, we direct the learned Special Judge, Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Coimbatore, to proceed with the Spl.C.C.No.9/2013 on day-to-day basis and dispose of

¶33

the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six months.

¶34

With the above observation and direction, the Contempt

¶35

Petition is dismissed. List this matter after six months ''for reporting compliance''.

¶36

SD/-

¶37

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES)

¶38

tsi

¶39

//Certified to be true copy//

¶40

Dated at Madras this the day of 2021.

¶41

COURT OFFICER(O.S.) from 25^th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing Certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format. GS/01/12/2021

¶42

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

¶43

Cont.P.No.1495 of 2016

¶44

¶45

The Special Judge, Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Coimbatore

¶46

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

Dr.R.Radhakrishnan v. a.Muraleetharan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.R.Radhakrishnan v. a.Muraleetharan

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

K.P.N. Kumaran Vs the District Collector

N.Kumar (Deceased) Vs The Corporation of Chennai

The Secretary to Govt Vs Dravidar Kazhagam

The Managing Director Vs S. Paramanandam (Deceased)

Dr.R.Radhakrishnan(P-in-P) Vs a.Muraleetharan

Selvaganapathy, Vs E.Jeevanandam