Gross Impropriety And Abuse of Judicial Power: Madras HC Sets Aside Discharge Of Former CM Panneerselvam In DA Case

While setting aside the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivagangai permitting the prosecution to withdraw the case, Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that the order of special judge smacked of gross impropriety and abuse of judicial power.

“The result of the aforesaid discussion is that this Court has no hesitation in observing that the exercise of power by the Special Judge - Mr.S.Karuppiah to withdraw the prosecution against A1 and his family smacks of gross impropriety and abuse of judicial power. The order of the Special Court dated 03.12.2012 does not subserve, but is rather subversive of the rule of law,” the court said.

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. A preliminary inquiry was conducted by DVAC and finding materials to proceed further, a case was registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theni had taken cognisance of the report. Later, a Special Court was constituted at Madurai for cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Despite this, the CJM Theni continued to detain the records and allowed further investigation on an application filed by the accused persons. Later, when the cases were transferred to the Special Court, the Special Judge smelt a rat and held that the order of the CJM Theni for further investigation was illegal. Following this, the accused approached the Madurai bench of Madras High Court against the order of the Special Judge wherein the High Court transferred the case to the CJM, Sivagangai without even examining if there were valid grounds for transfer.

Vested Interest Of Executive

The court noted that a modus operandi was followed the present case, similar to that followed in other cases involving the Ministers. The court noted that once Panneerselavm was back to the political saddle as the Finance Minister, he lost no time in setting the entire investigation machinery as well as the high constitutional functionaries like the Advocate General and the Public Prosecutor to find out ways and means to diffuse and self-destruct the prosecution case.

The court noted that the DVAC was put to fish out defence material and later a further investigation report was prepared which was placed before Speaker first, before the CJM. The court noted that these actions showed the vested interest of the executive in ensuring that the proceedings before the Special Court were short circuited.

“The aforesaid developments bear testimony to the vested interests of the Executive in seeing to it that the proceedings before the Special Court were short circuited at the earliest available opportunity. It is extremely strange and puzzling that the report upon further investigation was not first placed before the Court namely the CJM, Theni, which ordered such investigation, but was, instead, placed before the Sanctioning Authority ie., the Speaker,” the court observed.

Speaker Indirectly Sat On Appeal Over Judicial Order

The court further observed that when the report was placed before the Speaker, he should not have observed that there were no materials to show commission of offence. The court observed that the Speaker committed a grave act of constitutional impropriety by indirectly sitting on appeal over a judicial order which was already pending before the courts.

“This Court has no hesitation in concluding that the Speaker committed a grave act of constitutional impropriety observing that there was no material to show the commission of any offence, which was an indirect way of sitting on appeal over a judicial order taking cognizance of the offence after finding that the final report did disclose the commission of an offence. The order taking cognizance is a judicial order and constitutional propriety demanded that the Speaker took his hands off when a Court of competent jurisdiction was seized of the lis,” the court said.

Petition For Withdrawal

The court also observed that the points enumerated in the petition for withdrawal were quite bizzare and it was more surprising to note that the Special Judge had accepted these contentions and allowed the prosecution to withdraw from the case.

The court noted that the newly appointed investigating officer, in his furtjer investigation report had remarked that the earlier final report filed by the former IO had become infructuous after an order of further investigation. The court noted that this submission was grossly illegal and a supplementary report was only an additional to the final report and did not wipe out the earlier report. The court was even more surprised to note that the public prosecutor had gone one step ahead and remarked that the cognisance based on earlier report had become infructuous and that a decision had to be taken regarding fresh cognisance.

The court also noted that the CJM accepting these submissions was a reflection of the abysmal depths to which the special courts had sunk.

Though an objection was raised as to court's power to initiate suo motu proceedings, the court ruled that when there was brazen illegality in the order of a criminal court, the High Court could not remain a mute spectator. The court added that the power of suo motu revision under Section 397 CrPC was envisaged to serve wider salutary purpose and to ensure that the administration of justice was not reduced to farce particularly in cases were the prosecution and the accused join hands to achieve results.

The court also remarked that if politicians were allowed to pocket the investigating officers and judges, no corruption cases could exist against the politicians.

“if politicians in this State start pocketing Investigation Officers and Judges of the Special Courts after they come to power, no case of corruption can go on against them,” the court said.

Thus, the court set aside the order allowing withdrawal of prosecution and restored the case. The court also transferred the case to reg Special Court at Madurai and directed the Special Court to accord priority to the matter by conducting day to day trial and dispose the case by June 31, 2025.

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.P.S.Raman, AG assisted by Mr. K.M.D.Muhilan, GA (Crl.Side), Mr.Aabad Ponda, SC for Mrs.P.Rajalakshmi, Mr.S.Elambharathi, Mr.R.Srinivas, SC for Mr.M.R.Sivakumar, Mr.M.K.Ajith Kumar

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 412

Case Title: Suo Motu v The Deputy Superintendent and Others

Case No: Suo Motu Criminal Revision Case No.1524 of 2023