V ARULKUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (a) The petitioner was working as the Regional Chief, Housing Corporation (HUDCO), Chennai. The case against the petitioner before the lower Court pertains to some alleged irregularities in the sanction of plot loans to certain persons. The allegation is that in respect of HUDCO Niwaz scheme (a scheme promoted by HUTCO for financing plot loans) pertaining to a layout at Shakti Nagar, Sewapettai Village and Kothari New Town Phase-1, Pennagathur Village, a conspiracy was hatched during 2001 to 2003 by the petitioner along with 14 others, committed irregularities by submission of forged documents, lack of pre-sanction verification etc., and that by misuse of the official position of the petitioner as a public servant, directed approvers Subramaniam and Muralidharan to release loans based on the value mentioned in the sale agreement which are higher than the sale price/market and guideline value, prepared a note on 18.3.2002 antedating it as 5.3.2002 and committed several other illegal and irregular acts and thereby the petitioner/A1 and other 14 accused (A2 to A15) made HUDCO to suffer a wrongful loss of Rs. 21,07;546.50 and thereby charged under Section 120-B, read with 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) In the counter filed by the prosecution it is stated that the date of arrest and release on bail are available on the records of the learned Court and Section 207 Cr.P.C. as averred by the petitioner, does not insists any Magistrate to furnish such details. Section 207 insists the Magistrate to furnish only the documents which were forwarded along with the police's final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. As per Section 306(1) Cr.P.C. the Chief Judicial Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate at any stage of investigation or inquiry into or trial of the offence may tender pardon to such person. The Section does not specifically state that the Court which inquires into/tries the case should tender pardon. Sub-Class 2 of the same Section specifically states, the Section applies to any offence triable by the Court of Sessions or by the Court of Special Judge. The contention of the petitioner/accused in respect of non-admissibility of approvers' evidence as per Section 136 of Indian Evidence Act is not tenable and it is intended to mislead the Court. The recording of confessional statements of approvers and tender of pardons were done by the learned Magistrates after bringing on record their reasons for doing so. The petition filed without any reasonable grounds, is only to delay the proceedings, hence, this petition may be dismissed.

(3.) After hearing both parties, the learned XI Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai has dismissed the application under observation that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had recorded the confession statements of five approvers in a lawful manner and there is no impediment for the learned Magistrate to grant tender of pardon to those persons. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.