SUBRAMANIAN P. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the sole accused in C.C. No.5005 of 2018, which is taken on file for the alleged offences under Ss. 466, 468, 471, 211, 420 r/w 511 of IPC and 465, 471 r/w 465 IPC, 420 r/w 511 of IPC and 201 of IPC filed Crl. M.P. No.17295 of 2021 to discharge him from the case. By an order dtd. 9/2/2022, the trial court found that there are prima facie materials against the accused to proceed by way of trial by framing charges and therefore, dismissed the discharge application, as against which the present revision is laid before this court.

(2.) Heard Mr.K.P.Anantha Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing on behalf of the prosecution and also perused the materials available on record.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by taking this court through the gist of allegations and the charge levelled against the petitioner would submit that the crux of the allegation is that the petitioner, who was acting on behalf of a Russian company, which submitted a bid in the tender called for by the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Chennai, had submitted before the court in a writ appeal before the Division Bench of this court. A letter alleged to have been given by ISRO stating that the said company is exempted from paying Earnest Money Deposit. Therefore, by a judgment dtd. 14/10/2004, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this court in W.A. No.4103 of 2003 held as follows:-