G THIYAGARAJAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE eighth accused in Special Case No.1 of 2006 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai prefers the present criminal original petition seeking quashment of the charge sheet laid as against him in Crime No.2 of 1998 on the file of the respondents for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(B),409,167,420,477(A) IPC r/w 109 IPC and 13(1)(c) and (d) r/w 13(2) and Section 15 r/w 13(1)(d)(ii) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) THE second respondent has alleged in the First Information Report as follows: THE Tamil Nadu State Construction Corporation Limited which was incorporated on 08.02.1980 under the Companies Act, 1986 is one of the undertakings of the Government of Tamil Nadu. THE Tamil Nadu Government entrusted the modernisation of Periyar-Vaigai link canal work to the Public Works Department Irrigation Branch in the year 1990. THE total value of the entire scheme was Rs.35 crores. Credible information and discreet enquiries would reveal that the Tamil Nadu State Construction Corporation Limited entrusted a portion of the aforesaid work to the eighth accused, who was a Sub contractor. During the period between May 1993 and July 1994, the other accused entered into a criminal conspiracy with the eighth accused to misappropriate the funds of the Tamil Nadu State Construction Corporation Limited in relation to the aforesaid contract work in the guise of making adhoc payments for the work allegedly executed by violating all the rules and regulations in the exercise of their official capacity, abusing their official position without recording any measurement in M-Book, falsifying the accounts and producing false certificates for misusing the funds allotted for the aforesaid works and released payment approximately to the tune of Rs.3.65 crores to the eighth accused in excess of the estimated cost even before the completion of the work and misappropriated about Rs.1 crore.

(3.) THREE contentions are made on the side of the eighth accused, who is the petitioner herein. The legal plea taken by the petitioner is that the second respondent has no authority to register a case based on the information, he has collected from anonymous sources. Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contemplates registration of a case based on the information furnished by a third party. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Madurai cannot be the author of the complaint to set the law in motion. The next stand taken by the petitioner is that the perusal of the entire gamut of allegations found in the First Information Report and the statements recorded by the first respondent would go to show that there was no offence committed by the petitioner, who was just a contractor. The third ground set up by the petitioner herein is that the Tamil Nadu State Construction Corporation Limited having filed written statement to the effect that excess payment had been made to the petitioner by the officials attached to the Tamil Nadu State Construction Corporation Limited, has come out with a wild allegation in this complaint just to counter blast the civil suit filed by the petitioner seeking payment withheld by the Tamil Nadu State Construction Corporation Limited.