M S KUPPUSWAMI AND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner in Crl. R.C. No. 465 of 1988 and Crl. M.P. No. 6501 of 1988 is the same. The revision has been filed, challenging the order of the IX Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge) Madras, passed in Cri. M.P. No. 4475 of 1988 in C.C. No. 21 of 1987, refusing to discharge the Petitioner and consequently framing a charge, against the Petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, hereinafter called, the Act. In Crl. M.P. 650 of 1988 the prayer is to call forthe records in C.C. No. 21 of 1987 of the file of the IX Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Madras, and quash the proceedings therein, as not maintainable and an abuse of process of Court. In the revision as well as the miscellaneous petition, the petitioner M. S. Kuppuswami has raised almost identical grounds.

(2.) In Cri. M.P. No. 13294 of 1989, the petitioner Thangiah, who is the accused in C.C. No. 26 of 1986 pending on thel file of the IX Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge) Madras, has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, to call for the records and quash the proceedings in the afroestated calendar case, as not maintainable an and abuse of process of Court. The Petitioner in this Petition is being prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Act.

(3.) In Crl. M.P. No.13361 of l989 the Petitioner D. Krishnamoorthy has made a similar prayer to call for the records in C.C. No. 22 of 1986 pending on the file of the same Court, where he is accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Act.