Madras High Court Asks CBI To Proceed With Probe Against Pondicherry University Professor, Others For Alleged Misappropriation Of Funds

“Even after lapse of 4 months, the department concerned not reacted and responded to the request and what they have communicated belatedly after filing of this petition is ignored. As a result, the CBI is requested to register the complaint and proceed with the investigation,” the court said.

The court noted that in the present case, since the person against whom the inquiry was sought was a public servant, the CBI had thought it fit to get prior sanction under the Act. The court also noted that the CBI sought the sanction after being satisfied of materials available to register preliminary enquiry.

However, the court was informed that the Under Secretary to the Government had not responded to the CBI request even after several reminders which prompted the complainant to approach the court for directions.

The court also noted that the CBI on scrutiny had found incriminating materials to show Prof S. Hariharan, who was officiating as the Director of HRDC from 2008 to 2016, had misappropriated funds financed by the Government of India using fake and forged bills, "causing a wrongful loss to the Government of India to the tune of Rs.2.25 Crores."

The court further noted that the report of the Finance Section was forwarded to the Internal Audit Wing of the University which in its report to the Vice Chancellor had said that a sum of Rs. 27 Lakh had been misappropriated through many fake bills. CBI had also found incriminating material to indicate that Prof. Hariharan had allegedly bribed the Vice Chancellor with Rs. 50 lakh to give him a clean chit to escape the action, the court noted.

The court observed Section 17A of the Act, which was brought in to protect officers from malicious prosecution, mandates that approval should be granted within a period of 3 months or within a further period of one month, after which the sanction is deemed to have been accorded.

“If they wait for more than the period prescribed, there is every possibility of screening the evidence. The provision which is incorporated for protecting the honest officers cannot be allowed to be misused and abused to protect the dishonest officers to enable them to screen incriminating material against them,” the court observed.

In the present case, the court noted that the concerned department had not accorded sanction or responded to the CBI’s request within the stipulated time frame. Thus, noting that such belated communications can be ignored, the court disposed of the petition asking the CBI to proceed with the investigation.

Case Title: A Anand v. The Superintendent of Police and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 224

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.R.Vivekananthan

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.K.Srinivasan, Senior Counsel Special Public Prosecutor (CBI)