M VEERAPPAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant criminal revision has arisen in this way:- The first respondent herein, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CB CID. Erode Unit, registered a case against the petitioner herein, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and also against one Paramasivam alleging that during the period from 26-12-1994 to 25-12-1995, the said persons conspired with one another and dishonestly allowed the suppliers of (i) bus body kits(2) seat assembly, (3) spares and (4) tickets to the Jeeva Transport Corporation to misappropriate the funds of the Transport Corporation to the tune of Rs. 85,92,426.50 P. The charge against the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 were also framed for commission of offence under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned Special Judge No. 1, Chennai took the matter on file in Spl. C.C.No. 8 of 1997 and proceeded with the trial. More than 78 witnesses have been examined. At this stage, the petitioner has come forward with a petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C. contending that the suppliers who have given evidence on behalf of the Transport Corporation have stated that they were also instrumental in commission of crime and therefore they should also be included as accused for commission of offence under Sec. 409 I.P.C.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the first respondent has filed objections stating that the petitioner stands charged of committing offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act and as per Section 24 of the said Act, the witness ought to have given statement before the Investigating Officer enjoying an immunity from being prosecuted.

(3.) The learned Special Judge accepted the contentions of the first respondent and dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned Special Judge, the petitioner has preferred the instant revision.