Another Instance Of Criminal Trial Being Derailed By Political Leaders: Madras HC Exercises Suo Moto Revisional Powers Against Release Of DMK Ministers Accused Of Corruption

While exercising its suo-motu revisional powers under Article 227 in a case where two DMK Ministers accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act were discharged by the Special Court, the Madras High Court observed that it was yet another instance where the criminal trial was being derailed by political leaders.

The Court observed, "This, therefore, is yet another instance of a criminal trial being derailed by the active design of those at the helm of political power. If this trend goes unchecked, our Special Courts meant for MP/MLA trials would become a playground for all sorts of condemnable practices which are handcrafted and orchestrated to subvert and derail the criminal justice system."

The High Court pointed so while exercising its suo-motu revisional powers against the discharge of the political personages of the ruling party i.e., DMK, whereby the incumbent Minister for Revenue and Disaster Management Mr. K.K.S.S.R. Ramachandran, his wife Adhilakshmi and another, as well as the incumbent Electricity Minister Mr. Thangam Thennarasu and his wife T. Manimegalai, were discharged by the orders of Special Court for MP/MLA Cases (Principal Sessions Judge), Virudhunagar District.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed that “the order dated 12.12.2022 passed by the Special Court for MP’s and MLA’s case (Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilluputhur suffers from grave illegality which has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice. It is all too apparent that upon a change of power in the State in 2021, the identities of the accused and the prosecution were obliterated as all the players in the game suddenly found themselves belonging to the same team. Realizing this, the umpire ie., the Special Court appears to have decided that the wisest course open to it was to get itself out hit wicket”.

The High Court went on to elucidate that after filing discharge applications, the cases were adjourned for months and years, and in the meanwhile, the main accused regained their positions as Ministers in the State Cabinet.

The High Court clarified that after resuming the position in the Cabinet, the State prosecution very magnanimously came forward and offered to conduct “further investigation” in the garb of a “closure report” which was tailored to support the grounds for discharge.

“The Special Court was then presented with a perfect fiat accompli as the prosecution suddenly whitewashed its earlier final report and presented a picture of complete innocence. On its part, the Special Court accepted the closure report and proceeded to discharge the accused”, added the Court.

The Bench therefore added that when investigation officers in corruption cases start dancing to the lullabies of the politicians in power the concept of fair and impartial investigation would be reduced to a mere charade, which is precisely what has happened in this case.

The brief facts of the case were that Mr. Thangam Thennarasu was elected to the Tamil Nadu State Legislative Assembly in May 2006, and he was a member of the State Cabinet of the DMK till 2011 holding the portfolio as the Minister for School Education. The case of the prosecution is that during the check period, the then Education Minister, and his wife Manimegalai had amassed assets which were far in excess of their known sources of income, which resulted in criminal case alleging the commission of offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 109 IPC. During the pendency of the trial, Manimegalai filed a discharge petition before the Special Court just a couple of months before the State elections. Thereafter, a Special Public Prosecutor was sought to be appointed when there was already one before the Court. Through a mischievous act, the matter was successfully dragged on till the assembly elections in May 2021, and the accused was back in the saddle as the incumbent Minister for Electricity. The stage was now set for the prosecution to self-destruct. The matter started getting deferred again and again and since the accused once again become the Minister, the ‘so called further investigation’ was set to turmoil.

After considering the submission, the Bench stated that the Special Court ought to have known that criminals and ethics are strange bedfellows, and that tactlessly mixing them up would produce a deadly cocktail.

The Bench found that the IO’s closure report states that the assets acquired for a sum of Rs. 1,62,40,074/- were within the likely savings of the accused amounting to Rs. 1,63,95,027/- leaving the accused with an excess savings of Rs.1,54,953/-.

“What is, however, shocking is that in the document titled “final closure report” the IO Boominathan has investigated grounds that have not even been raised in the discharge petition but were raised for the first time in the written arguments to the discharge petition”, added the Bench.

The Bench therefore highlighted that the Special Court ought to have ascertained the legality of the “closure report” of the ITO, who has claimed that he was only exercising his statutory power under Section 173(8) to undertake further investigation, and by doing so he effectively wiped out the earlier findings of the previous IO.

“The three stakeholders viz., the accused, the prosecution and the Special Court have acted in tandem to reduce the administration of the criminal justice system to a complete farce. There are several things in this case that are seriously amiss. First is the legality of the so-called “further investigation” by IO Boominathan. As pointed out earlier, in the so-called “further investigation” under Section 173(8) Boominathan has handed down a clean chit to the accused thereby wiping out the findings and conclusions arrived by IO Swaminathan in his 2012 final report indicting the very same accused”, added the Bench.

The High Court, therefore, amazed as to how the Special Court entertained a hitherto unknown document called a “final closure report” and that too under Section 173(8) CrPC almost 10 years later in 2022 which set up a completely new case that no offence had been committed.

Accordingly, the High Court directed the Registry to issue notice to the accused in Special Case No. 20 of 2019, Special Court for MP/MLA Cases (Principal Sessions Judge), Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur, who are the second and third respondents in this criminal revision, for the hearing on Sep 20, 2023.

Cause Title: In re Suo-Motu Criminal Revision against State and Ors.

Click here to read/download the Order