I. PERIASAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the first accused in Special Case No. 27 of 2014, on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Dindigul. Including the petitioner, totally, there are four accused. The second accused is his wife and the third and fourth accused are his sons. The petitioner was the Minister for Revenue and Prison Departments, Government of Tamil Nadu, between 13.05.2006 and 31.03.2010. The respondent registered a case against the petitioner in Crime No. 1 of 2012, under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and on completing the investigation, laid a final report before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, at Dindigul. According to the said final report, the petitioner, along with the other accused, during the check period between 13.05.2006 and 31.03.2010, had disproportionate assets to the known sources of income of A -1 and his family members to the tune of Rs. 2,01,35,152.16. With the above conclusion, the respondent filed a final report alleging that the petitioner had committed offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the other accused had committed the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. All the accused have made appearance before the lower Court and the copies of the documents, which are going to be relied on by the prosecution during the trial, have already been furnished to the accused under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The case is now listed for hearing the petitioner and the other accused as well as the prosecution on the question of charges. At that stage, the petitioner filed a Miscellaneous Petition in Crl. MP. No. 513 of 2014 before the lower Court, supported by an affidavit, seeking a direction to the respondent Police to produce the following documents:

(2.) IN the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was submitted by the petitioner before the lower Court that the documents are very relevant for him to make his submissions. In paragraph No. 9 of the affidavit, more specifically, it is stated that he has reason to suspect that the said detailed enquiry report filed by the respondent is contrary to the present charges, which are sought to be leveled against the accused. It is also stated that if the above documents are produced, it would be useful for the accused to make his submissions on the charges. A counter was filed by the respondent before the Lower Court, wherein it was stated that all the documents, including the statement of witnesses, which came into being during the investigation, were supplied to the accused as required under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. During the course of preliminary enquiry/detailed enquiry held, prior to the registration of the case, according to Paragraph No. 6 of the counter affidavit, the Officer did not examine any witness and he only enquired some of the persons, who had knowledge of the affairs of the petitioner and his family members. Precisely, Paragraph No. 6 of the counter reads as follows: -

(3.) HAVING considered the above submissions, the Trial Court, by order dated 26.02.2015, dismissed the petition. As against the same, the petitioner is now before this Court with this Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.