“Would You Have Conducted Further Investigation For Ordinary Person?”: Madras HC Asks IO In Suo Motu Revision Against Acquittal Of Minister Thangam Thenarasu

Justice Anand Venkatesh interrogated the Investigating Officer Bhoominathan in open court and asked him if he had filed a similar final closure report in the past 7 years that he had been dealing with corruption cases. When the IO answered that this was the only case in which he had filed such a report, the judge wondered what prompted the officer to take up such further investigation.

The court also went on to question the officer on the report submitted by him and even asked him for details about the Supreme Court judgments relied upon him in the report.

“As an investigation officer, do you read a lot of judgments? Because you have mentioned all these cases and citations in the report,” the judge asked.

The allegation against Thangam Thenarasu is that while serving as a Minister for school education during the DMK regime from 2006-2011, he and his wife amassed disproportionate assets. Based on searches conducted in his residence in Virudhunagar and Chennai, a case was filed by the DVAC under PCA. However, after taking note of a final report saying that no offense was made out, the Special Court discharged him too in December 2023.

Appearing for Thenarasu, Senior Advocate Ranjith Kumar argued that the prosecution initiated against Thenarasu was tainted and was merely because he belonged to the opposition party at that time. He thus argued that there was bias of mind while starting the prosecution which violated his right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Kumar also submitted that while filing the initial final report, the investigating agency had ignored certain documents that accounted for the wealth of Thenarasu.

It was also submitted that the Magistrate had the discretion to look into the reports submitted by the prosecution, both positive and negative, and arrive at his decision. Kumar added that the prosecution had not wiped out any material during further investigation.

Senior Advocate A Ramesh, also appearing for Thenarasu, submitted that there was nothing as an independent investigation, and if the investigation was independent, such vindictive prosecution would not have been initiated.

He added that though the IO had committed an error by filing the subsequent report as a final closure report instead of a supplementary report, it would not affect the contents of the report. He thus submitted that it was for the Magistrate to look into the contents of the report irrespective of the nomenclature.

Case Title: Suo Motu RC v State

Case No: Crl RC 1481 of 2023