Public Confidence Will Be Shaken If Ministers And MLAs Facing Corruption Case Short-Circuit Criminal Trial: Madras High Court

“The legitimacy of the administration of criminal justice will be eroded and public confidence shaken if MLA's and Ministers facing corruption cases can short-circuit criminal trials by adopting the modus operandi that has been carried out in this case. The public should not be led to believe that a trial against a politician in this State is nothing but a mockery of dispensing criminal justice. A Constitutional Court is duty-bound, under the Constitution, to ensure that such things do not come to pass,” the court observed.

Justice Anand Venkatesh also observed that the trial court order discharging Periyasamy was manifestly illegal and that the trial judge had committed grave procedural impropriety which necessitated the court's intervention. The court added that once the trial had commenced, the discharge petition filed by Periyasamy was not maintainable and the trial court had committed an error by entertaining it and allowing it.

“The inescapable conclusion is that once the trial had commenced Crl.M.P.No. 4204 of 2023 filed by the 2 nd respondent (A3) seeking discharge was not maintainable. Consequently, the Special Court committed a gross illegality in entertaining and allowing a second discharge petition in the midst of trial. This Court has no hesitation in holding that the order dated 17.03.2023 passed in Crl.MP.No.4204 of 2023 discharging A3 smacks of manifest illegality and grave procedural impropriety warranting interference under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C,” the court observed.

The case against Periyasamy was that while serving as the Minister for Housing in the DMK cabinet between 2008 and 2009, he had conspired with other persons to illegally obtain a High Income Group Plot in the Mogappair Eri Scheme of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board.

The High Court has now allowed the suo moto revision taken up against the discharge of the Minister and thus set aside the trial court order. The court has ordered the trial to be transferred from the Special Court for cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act to the Special Court for the trial of cases against MPs and MLAs.

During the hearing, Periyasamy had argued that the trial against him was initiated upon the permission of the Speaker which vitiated the trial since the proper authority for granting sanction was the Governor. He had thus argued that the trial was non-est in law and that the second discharge petition was maintainable.

The court, however, disagreed with this argument. The court noted that at the tine of taking cognisance of the offence, Periyasamy was not a Minister but an MLA and thus, the Speaker's permission to conduct trial was proper. The court thus observed that the Speaker's permission/sanction did not suffer from any infirmity or want of authority.

The court also noted that the Special Court's order was tainted with procedural impropriety since the court had acted in open defiance of the earlier order of the High Court directing the Special Court to proceed with the trial.

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. P.S. Raman Advocate General Asst.by Mr..M.D.Muhilan Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 Mr.Ranjit Kumar Senior Counsel and Mr. A.Ramesh, Senior Counsel for Mr.C.Arun Kumar for R2

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 83

Case Title: The State v I Periyasamy

Case No: SUO MOTU Crl.R.C.No.1559 of 2023