M KARUNANIDHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals by certificate are directed against an common order of the Madras High Court dated 10th May, 1977 dismissing the applications filed before the High Court by the appellant for quashing the order of the Special Judge, Madras dated 4th January, 1977 refusing to discharge the appellant under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code).

(2.) The facts of the case have been detailed in the judgment of the High Court and it is not necessary for us to repeat the same all over again. However, in order to understand the points in issue, it may be necessary to give a resume of the important stages through which the case has passed and the constitutional points argued before us.

(3.) The appellant, M. Karunanidhi, was a former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and was the petitioner before the High Court in the applications filed by him before the High Court. On 15-6-1976 a D. O. letter was written by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CBI requesting him to make a detailed investigation into certain allegations against the appellant and others who were alleged to have abused their official position in the matter of purchase of wheat from Punjab. A first information report was accordingly recorded on 16-6-1976 and four months later sanction under Section 197 of the Code was granted by the Governor of Tamil Nadu for the prosecution of the appellant under Sections 161, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the Corruption Act). Thereafter, the police submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant for the offences mentioned above a alleged that the appellant had derived for himself pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs. 4 to Rs. 5 lakhs firm Madanlal Gupta for passing favourable order in respect of some firms. The case was registered before the Special Judge and the necessary copies of the records were furnished to the appellant. The appellant on appearing before the Special Judge filed an application for discharging him under Section 239 of the Code on the ground that the prosecution against him suffered from various legal and constitutional infirmities. The Special Judge, however, after hearing counsel for the parties rejected the application of the appellant as a result of which the appellant filed two applications in the High Court for quashing the proceedings and for setting aside the order of the special Judge refusing to discharge the appellant. As indicated above, the High Court rejected the applications of the appellant but granted a certificate for leave to appeal to this Court and hence these appeals before us.