P KAILASAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Prayer: This Criminal Revision has been preferred against the Order dated 16.11.2004, in Crl.M.P.No.170 of 2004 in R.C.No.47 (A) of 2003 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, (CBI Cases), Coimbatore.) This revision has been preferred against the order dated 16.11.2004, passed in Crl.M.P.No.170 of 2004 in R.C.No.47 (A) of 2003 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, (CBI Cases), Coimbatore.

(2.) IN Crl.M.P.No.170 of 2004 the learned trial judge has conducted an enquiry against the closure report filed under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., by the INspector of Police, SPE/CBI/ACB, Chennai. After examining P.W.1 to P.W.7 in Crl.M.P.No.170 of 2004 against closure report in R.C.No.47 (A) of 2003 of INspector of Police, SPE/CBI/ACB, Chennai, the trial Court has given notice of closure to the complainant. On the basis of the oral evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.7 the trial Judge has passed an order in Crl.M.P.No.170 of 2004 holding that there is no prima facie case made out against the accused to initiate proceedings against him under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and accordingly the learned trial Judge has dismissed the complaint under Section 303 of Cr.P.C., against which the complainant has preferred this criminal revision.

(3.) IN the result, the criminal revision petition is dismissed confirming the order in Crl.M.P.No.170 of 2004 in R.C.No.47(A) of 2003 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, (CBI Cases), Coimbatore. At this juncture the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that the order of dismissal of this court in this revision may have an impact on the departmental proceedings already initiated and pending before the higher officials of BSNL. I make it clear that the order passed in this revision petition will not have any barring to the departmental proceedings pending before the department.