SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY Vs. J JAYALALITHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition coming on for orders as to admission on this day upon perusing the petition, and the order of the Lower Court and upon hearing the arguments of Dr. Subramanian Swamy the petitioner herein and of Mr. K. A. Panchapagesan, advocate for the respondent and of Mr. R. Shanmugasundaram the Public Prosecutor, the Court made the following order :-An interesting question of law, however, almost settled by the judicial pronouncements by now, is being raised in this case, while seeking admission of this revision filed to challenge the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madras in Unnumbered C.C. of 1996 in S.R. No. 4604 of 1996 dated 15-7-1996.

(2.) Mr. Subramanian Swamy, President of Janatha party, filed a private complaint before the court below against Selvi Jayalalitha for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 11, 13(1)(c) and (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 stating that the latter while she was the Chief Minister, along with others contravened the various provisions of law and indulged in some transaction of the property owned by the Government and so on. The matrix of the matter to be highlighted for the limited purpose of appreciating this revision, as culled out from the complaint is extracted as under :- The Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation Limited, popularly known as Tansi, a Government undertaking under the aegis of the Department of Industries runs certain Industries owning its infrastructure like buildings, lands, machineries, etc., however with a constant incurring of debt. It was stated that the Government of Tamil Nadu by passing a Government Order, had decided to dispose of certain properties amongst, the same, one is the property, which is the subject matter herein along with others by violating all the norms and procedures and by abdicating various procedures and so on, she enriched by herself and therefore, the complaint was preferred in the court below. To substantiate this, G.O. Ms. 832 Industries SID (2) Department, dated 30-9-1985 was also referred to in the complaint. The plinth area of the property is roughly about 30,966 sq.ft. provided with all amenities and accommodations. The respondent herein and her sole partner of Jaya Publication, a partnership firm, purchased this property on 29-5-1992 as the said firm has been reconstituted on 22-1-1990. In an off shoot publication made in one of the News media by the Chairman and Managing Director of TANSI, the so-called advertisement was made for the disposal of the land and building of TANSI, but it was not decipherable and noted down by anyone. The said publication did not contain the proposed extent of the property to be disposed of and the said advertisement was made without givingadequate time to reflect as provided by the rules and all these methods were adopted by the respondent/accused only with a view to make a stage-management as if the relevant procedure and rules have been followed. The market value of the property was also said to have been undermined to a great extent and to suit such under valuation, violation of rules more in number were also made to get the document executed, completed and registered. The revenue duly expected by the exchequer of the Government was thus avoided and benefitted by the respondent, which amounted to the commission of offences above referred to. The private complaint as provided under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the petitioner herein before the court below on 11-7-1996 and the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madras, by passing the impugned order has returned the same while exercising his powers under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The following is the exact narration of the operation order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge as found in paragraph 5 :-It is necessary to state that for the very same subject matter in the complaint, the State Crime Branch, CID Police, has already registered a case against the accused and other persons on 9-7-1996 in Cr. No. 17/96 and the case is under investigation. The present complaint has been given by the complainant only on 11-7-96. When the subject matter has already been taken cognizance by the police and the matter is being investigated, there is absolutely no necessity to take the present complaint on file and proceed according to law. It is also not necessary to send this complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C. to the police, because the matter is already under investigation by the police and this process would amount to duplication. Taking into consideration of the fact that for the very same subject matter, a case has been registered by the State Police and the investigation is going on, I am of the view that it is not necessary to take the complaint on file and as such the complaint has to be returned to the complainant.In the result, the complaint is returned to the complainant as the matter is already under investigation by the Crime Branch CID Police."It is, this order which is being challenged and canvassed in this revision for its want of legality and propriety.

(3.) I have heard Dr. Subramanian Swamy, the petitioner herein who appeared in person and contra by Mr. Panchapagesan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. That apart, I have heard learned Public Prosecutor Mr. K. Shanmugasundaram also. As I felt necessary and directed already to produce the case diary in C.B. C.I.D. Police crime No. 17/96, the case diary has been produced before me and I have had an occasion to peruse the same and thereafter, the same was returned to the learned Public Prosecutor.