Madras High Court Permits Voter To Seek Records Of Disproportionate Assets Case Acquitting Social Welfare Minister Geetha Jeevan

Justice G Jayachandran noted that when the case involved misconduct by a public servant who was elected in a democratic process, the voters should not be prevented from perusing the records and arriving at a conclusion on whether his representative was falsely prosecuted or had gained un-meritorious acquittal.

“The discretion to file appeal against acquittal mostly depends upon whether the said politician is part of the real dispensation or not. If the Investigating Agency, in his wisdom, decides not to prefer the appeal against acquitted person, like the petitioner, who has interest in the case, which primarily involves misconduct of a public servant who happened to be an elected member in the democratic process, in which, the petitioner as a voter, have a say, cannot be deprived of the advantage of perusing the records and arrive at a conclusion that his representative has been falsely prosecuted or his representative has gained un-meritoriously acquittal,” the court observed.

In the present case, the petitioner S Shanmugasundaram had filed a third-party application seeking copies of a disproportionate asset case in the file of Thoothukudi Principal District Court. The State Legislative Member, Thoothukudi was prosecuted for the offence under Section 13(2), 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 109 of the IPC and was subsequently acquitted.

Shanmugasunadarm argued that being a voter of the Thoothukudi Assembly Constituency, he had a right to know about the details of the judgment and to examine the judgment he needed the documents. He added that the prosecution agency had not preferred an appeal against the acquittal and as an interested person, he wanted to prefer an appeal against the un-meritorious acquittal.

The Government Advocate informed that the copy application filed by Shanmugasunaram was rejected as the reason stated for seeking copies of the documents was not found to be satisfactory.

The court noted that as per Section 210 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, an application seeking copies of judgment or order or proceedings could only be allowed by the court if the petition was supported by an affidavit stating the purpose of acquiring a copy.

The court was thus inclined to allow the petition and directed Shanmugasunadram to file a fresh third-party petition with an affidavit and the necessary fee for the copies. The court also directed the Sessions Court to furnish the copies within 15 days from the date of the application.

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s.K.Jeyamohan

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Government Advocate

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 261

Case Title: S Shanmugasundaram v State

Case No: CRL.OP(MD)No.7350 of 2024