P SIRAJUDDIN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE cases arise out of a charge-sheet laid before the Special judge, Madras division, by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Madras on 5-10-1964 against P. Sirajuddin, Retired Chief engineer, Highways and Rural Works, Madras, under S. 165 I. P. C. and S. 5 (2) read with S. 5 (1) (b) and (d) of the Prevention of corruption Act 1947 (Central Act II of 1947), and taken on file as C. C. 10 of 1964 by the Special Judge. The petitioner is charged, to be brief, with having habitually obtained for himself and members of his family valuable things from his subordinate officers without consideration or for inadequate consideration or for inadequate consideration or securing pecuniary advantage, by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as public servant. Nineteen instances are enumerated in the charge-sheet between the period 3-1-1961 and 14-3-1964. He is alleged, for instance, to have directed another officer working under him to get a suit length of imported variety him to get a suit length of imported variety of cloth and for its cost of Rs. 390 paid Rs. 200 only and asked the subordinate officer to make good the balance by adjustment in the departmental nominal muster rolls. Similarly he had a new Rolex Oyster Date Wrist watch from his subordinate without paying for it, the cost to be taken by manipulation of the nominal muster rolls. He got amenities like white-washing and F. O. L. done to his house by his subordinates. For our present purpose it is needless to detail the charges.

(2.) BEFORE the matter was taken by the Special Judge for consideration, an application, Crl. M. P. No. 36 of 1964, was filed by the petitioner praying that he may be discharged under S. 251-A Cri. P. C. On this application the learned Special judge, while holding that there was no basis or material for charging the petitioner under S. 165 I. P. C. or under S. 5 (2) read with S. 5 (1) (b) of the Prevention of corruption Act, held that a charge could be framed against the accused under S. 5 (2) read with S. 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Against the said order dated 16-1-1965, the Public Prosecutor has preferred Crl. R. C. 294 of 1965 under ss. 435 and 439 Crl. P. C. The petitioner has preferred Crl. M. P. 934 of 1965 under s. 561-A Crl. P. C. for quashing the proceedings and discharging the petitioner, as the charge against him was groundless. W. P. 391 of 1965 is for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or direction under Art. 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order in Crl. M. P. No. 86 of 1964 directing the framing of the charge under S. 5 (2) read with S. 5 (1) (d) of Act 2 of 1947. W. P. 390 of 1965 relating to the same proceedings if for the issue of a writ of Mandamus or other corruption to forbear from prosecuting C. C. 10 of 1964. The writ petitions are sought to be maintained as providing the only effective remedy in the circumstances alleged. It is submitted that this is one of those cases where there has been such a violent departure from the provisions of the Criminal Procedure code in the matter of investigation and cognisance of offences as to amount to denial of justice and call for interference by the issue of prerogative writs. In the several affidavits filed averments are made that the investigation and prosecution are wholly made fide and groundless and have been set afoot by the officer immediately next in rank to the petitioner. Sivasankara Mudaliar. Superintending engineer, Madras. It is alleged that the petitioner was to retire on 14th March 1964 and in the normal course he would have been retained till he completed the age of 58 years, that the circumstances and sequence of events revealed that the aforesaid gentleman had used his influence with the Chief Minister of the State to get the petitioner retired, and that not content with it he is harassing him further. It is stated that the petitioner during the course of his official duties had to find fault with this gentleman, and that he had nurtured grievance against the petitioner on that account. Several serious irregularities during the investigation are listed and it is contended that from the records it will be clear that the petitioner is being specifically singled out and discriminated against. The two writ petitions, criminal revision cases and criminal miscellaneous petitions were all heard together and no objection as to the maintainability of the writ petitions was taken before us by the learned Advocate General appearing for the prosecution.

(3.) IN the affidavit in support of his petition for the issue of a writ of Mandamus the petitioner avers that from the copy of the statements furnished under S. 173