STATE Vs. R. LEELAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these criminal revisions have been filed by the State against the order of the learned Special Judge, Special Court for the Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai, whereby, the petitioners and the other accused were discharged from the case against them in C.C.No.84 of 2011.

(2.) Originally, P.R.Sundaram, Member of Legislative Assembly, Government of Tamilnadu, presented a complaint before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, on 21/11/2000 against Pulavar Senguttuvan, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry and nine others. On the directions issued by the Court, preliminary enquiry was conducted and report was submitted on 14/3/2001. After finalising the report, the same was sent to Government seeking concurrence. In the meantime, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, by an order dtd. 17/7/2003, directed the Director of Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Chennai, to register a regular case and proceed further based on the complaint given by said P.R.Sundaram.

(3.) Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the petitioner/State would submit that during 1998-1999 and 1999-2000, all the accused A1 to A7 entered into criminal conspiracy to commit and abet one another in the commission of the offences in connection with the centralized purchase of drugs/medicines intended for the supply/distribution to 30 regions and units under the control and domain of A2. Pursuant to the conspiracy, awarded the tenders to ineligible bidders and rejected the eligible bidders by recording incorrect and false details, by manipulating/forging the computerized comparative statement of tenderers, who participated in the tender and all material particulars such as the production/availability of valid manufacturing license, good published reports, good trial report, non conviction certificates, pharmocopical standard of drugs, market standing for 2 years, valid small scale industries certificates, valid income tax certificates. Finally they placed purchase orders with a few of the drug manufactures/dealers of their own choice, which is violation of tender procedures to favour them and paid exorbitant rates, which would be the corresponding loss to the Government in Animal Husbandry Department. Thereby the second accused, on instructions of the first accused, abused her official position by obtaining pecuniary advantage in purchasing medicines and equipments. Hence the first and second accused along with other accused, by abusing their official position misappropriated and cheated the Government funds by manipulating the records.