S LAKSHMANAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order of dismissal of the discharge petition filed under Section 239 passed by the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.943 of 2013 in C.C.No.11 of 2013, by order dated 03.02.2016, the petitioner has filed this Criminal Revision Petition.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is briefly stated hereunder:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner (A-1) submitted that A-1 was the Special Officer of the Society and he is no way connected with the issuance of allotment letters for the plots and the allotment was made only by the President (A-2) of the Society, who signed on those allotment letters. Moreover, the CMDA approved the allotment of plots only on 06.06.2002 and during the relevant point of time, the petitioner was not the Special Officer of the Society and he was appointed as Special Officer only on 27.07.2005, and hence, learned counsel, as noted earlier, submitted that the petitioner/A-1 is no way connected with the issuance of the said allotment letters for the plots. It is also his submission that the main allegation against the petitioner/A-1 is that he has filled up the blank columns in the allotment letters for the above said L.Ws.18 to 20, and the allotment letters were signed with ante-date by A-2 after his superannuation. Learned counsel further submitted that on a perusal of the allegations made in the charge sheet, it could be seen that there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner that he illegally obtained gratification of money and abused his official position. In fact, the monies alleged to have been so received from L.Ws.18 to 20, were kept only in suspense account by the petitioner (A-1). With regard to the allegation made in the charge-sheet that the petitioner/A-1 filled up the blank columns in the allotment letters with ante-date and thereby issued allotment letters to L.Ws.18 to 20 under criminal conspiracy with A-2 who signed on the said allotment letters, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/A.1 that the forged handwritings said to have been in the alleged allotment letters, were not sent for expert opinion in the manner known to law. In other words, as per Section 311-A Cr.P.C.., the respondent-Police is duty bound to get permission from the concerned Magistrate for obtaining specimen signatures or the handwritings of the accused persons. No such procedure was followed by the respondent-Police as provided under Section 311-A IPC. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of this Court in Crl.O.P.Nos.12751 and 12754 to 12760 of 2014, dated 06.08.2014 (Dr.MCR.Vyas Vs. the Inspector of Police, CBI, Anti-Corruption Branch, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai) and submitted that in that case, the learned Judge of this Court quashed the proceedings impugned therein and allowed the Crl.O.Ps. on the ground that there is no legal evidence against the petitioners therein to prove the charges levelled by the prosecution against them; in that case, one of the reasons assigned for allowing the Crl.O.Ps. is that under Section 311-A IPC, the respondent-CBI therein is duty bound to get permission from the concerned Magistrate for obtaining the specimen signatures or handwritings of the accused persons, which was not done in the case on hand. Therefore, it is the bone of contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the factual aspects of the present case is similar to that case, and hence, the signature of A-2 found in the allotment letters is inadmissible in evidence. Hence, learned counsel submitted that based on the inadmissible evidence, charge(s) cannot be framed against the petitioner/A-1.