A CHIDAMBARAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Chidambaram, arrayed as A-3, has filed this revision challenging the order dated 20-12-1996 passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, in Crl.M.P.No.366 of 1996 in Spl.C.C.No.25 of 1995 on his file, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner for discharge under Sec. 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) The respondent filed the charge-sheet against the petitioner and two others, alleging that A-1 Meyappan,A-2 Chandragiri and A-3 Chidambaram the petitioner herein, during the period between 19-11-1990 and 20-12-1990 entered into a criminal conspiracy and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, they misapporpirated a sum of Rs. 1,24,800/- from the Fort Branch of Indian Bank, Salem, and thereby they committed the offences punishable under Sec.l20-B read with Sec. 409 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec.l3(2) r/w Sec.13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(3.) Mr. N.T. Vanamamalai, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, while pointing out the illegality committed by the trial Court in the impugned order dismissing the petition filed for discharge, would contend that there is no iota of evidence against the petitioner either with regard to the conspiracy or with regard to his participation in any manner in the commission of the other offences as the statements of the witnesses and the documents accompanied along with the charge-sheet do not disclose even a semblance of material with reference to the above referred to accusation. He would further contend that even during the course of investigation since there was no material against him, no departmental action was taken and he was allowed to retire on 31-7-1993 on attaining superannuation and that though it was alleged that the offences committed by the petitioner as a public servant while he was in service, there is no sanction obtained and that the cognizance taken by the trial Court with reference to the offences alleged against him would not be valid in law.