“Just Because I Was Prosecuted, Doesn't Mean I Was Guilty”: Ex-CM O Paneerselvam Argues In Madras High Court During Suo Motu Hearing
Former Tamil Nadu CM O Panneerselvam on Monday defended his discharge from a corruption case. Pannerselvam argued that merely because a prosecution was initiated against him, it could not be said that he was guilty of corruption. He argued that the prosecution initiated against him was merely due to political differences and a further investigation, which brought to light the...
Former Tamil Nadu CM O Panneerselvam on Monday defended his discharge from a corruption case. Pannerselvam argued that merely because a prosecution was initiated against him, it could not be said that he was guilty of corruption. He argued that the prosecution initiated against him was merely due to political differences and a further investigation, which brought to light the relevant materials finding him not guilty was not illegal.
The submissions were made by Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda before Justice Anand Venkatesh. In August last year, the court had taken suo motu cognizance against an order of the trial court discharging him Panneerselvam from a corruption case. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court had also dismissed his plea challenging the High Court's exercise of suo motu cognizance.
The case against Paneerselvam was that while serving as the Revenue Minister and the Chief Minister of the State between 19.05.2001 to 21.09.2001 and 02.03.2002 to 12.05.2006, he had accumulated property and pecuniary resources disproportionate to his sources of income. On 03.12.2012, the CJM Sivaganga allowed the application filed by the prosecution for withdrawal and discharged the expelled AIADMK leader.
On Monday, Ponda argued that there was no illegality in the Magistrate's order allowing further investigation. He added that further investigation was essential for the ends of justice. Referring to precedents, Ponda argued that after further investigation, it was possible for the investigating authority to have the same conclusion or a different conclusion based on new/different materials and the same could not be called illegal.
It was submitted that by reopening the case, the court would be sending a man back to trial and to make a person face criminal trial was a serious matter affecting the dignity of the man. He added that every person had the right to a fair investigation and the agency had a duty not to conduct a one-sided investigation. The investigatior was expected to conduct a holistic investigation and was expected to bring all the relevant facts and documents to the court's attention to ensure fair play.
With respect to the application for withdrawal by DVAC, it was submitted that while considering such applications, the court need not necessarily examine the evidence and find out if the case would end up in conviction or acquittal as it would amount to rewriting Section 321 of CrPC.
The matter has now been posted to April 8th for further arguments.
Case Title: Suo Motu v Deputy Superintendent of Police and Others
Case No: Crl RC 1524 of 2023