J JAYALALITHA AND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1.1 The aforesaid petitions raise an interesting but somewhat complex question for adjudication as to the procedure to be followed after the further investigation permitted under S. 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure with reference to the evidence gathered and vital materials collected, pursuant to the Letters Rogatory issued and the undertakings given under S. 166-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1.2 In this regard, it is apt to extract S. 166-A and 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, for better appreciation of issues raised in the above petitions :

(2.) 1 The petitioners in Crl. O. P. Nos. 21969 and 22506 of 2001 are the accused A-1 and A-2 respectively in C. C. No. 2 of 2001 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, wherein, pursuant to a F.I.R. No. 2-AC-2000, dated 2-9-2000, filed by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Special Investigation, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the "respondent prosecution"), the petitioner in Crl. O. P. No. 21969 of 2001, with due sanction accorded by the Governor of Tamil Nadu, in G. O. Ms. No. 330, Public (SC) Department, dated 22-3-2001, and by a charge-sheet dated 23-3-2001, was charged for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 120-B, I.P.C. r/w. Section 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the petitioner in Crl. O. P. 22506 of 2001 was charged for the alleged offence punishable under Section 120-B, I.P.C. r/w. Section 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and punishable under Section 109, Indian Penal Code r/w. 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, alleging that the petitioner in Crl. O. P. No. 21969 of 2001, during her tenure as Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu from 1-7-1991 to 30-4-1996, had entered into criminal conspiracy with her close associate, viz., the petitioner in Crl. O. P. No. 22506 of 2001, and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, petitioner in Crl. O. P. No. 22506 of 2001 had funnelled out of India the funds of petitioner in Crl. O. P. No. 21969 of 2001, to the countries such as Singapore, Malaysia, United Kingdom and Canary Islands, in contravention of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and held pecuniary resources and properties outside the country on behalf of the petitioner in Crl. O. P. No. 21969 of 2001 and was investing huge amounts outside India on behalf the petitioner in Crl. O. P. No. 21969 of 2001. 2.2 Aggrieved by the summons issued under Section 61 of Code of Criminal Procedure, requiring the attendance of the petitioners herein on 5-11-2001, to answer the said charges in C. C. No. 2 of 2001 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, both the petitioners seek to quash the orders of summon.

(3.) Mr. K. Asokan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl. O. P. No. 21969 of 2001, highlighted the following materials in support of his contentions: