STATE Vs. N.SEENIVASAGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed, challenging the common order, dated 19.02.2019, passed by the Special Court, for Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act,Chennai, in Crl.MP.Nos.224 and 225 of 2019 in Spl.C.C.No.9/2011, dismissing the said petitions filed by the Petitioner/Complainant, to reopen the case and to recall/summon the witnesses, viz., P.W.1 and P.W.11, who are respectively the Officer, who accorded Sanction for Prosecution and the Investigation Officer.

(2.) Crl.MP.Nos.224 and 225 of 2019 had been filed by the Complainant/State, to reopen the case in CC.No.9 of 2011 and to recall P.W.1 and PW.11 in CC.No.9 of 2011 for examination, for the purpose of marking the Board Approval Order and connected documents of TANGEDCO.

(3.) In the said Miscellaneous Petitions to reopen and recall, Complainant/Petitioner had stated that the case was conducted by Mr.Tr.Panneerselvam, Additional Legal Adviser and he was transferred as the Deputy Director of Prosecution, Kancheepuram District and thereafter, Tr.Pandiarajan, ADLA, HQ, DVAC, Chennai was posted as the Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the case. It had been further stated that the Prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.12 and through them marked Exs.P1 to P11 and MO.1 to M.O.10. Ex.P1 is the Sanction Order and that the sanction has been accorded by the Board and signed by PW.1 in the capacity of Chairman of the Board of TANGEDCO. It was further stated that in so far as Ex.P1, order of sanction is concerned, though the same was issued by the Board, the accused had taken a stand in defence that the order was not issued by the Board and the same was issued by the Chairman, who was not a competent person to accord sanction to prosecute the accused. It had been stated that at the time of filing the charge sheet, the Investigation Officer had obtained the Approval Order of the Board and however, he had not submitted the same before the Trial Court and that hence, in support of the contention of the Prosecution that the sanction was accorded by the Board, it was necessary to mark the documents pertaining to Sanction from the Board of TANGEDCO to satisfy the Court to arrive at a just decision of the case that the sanction was accorded in accordance with law and Rules and Regulations of TANGEDCO. Further, it was stated that the defence cannot have any objection with regard to the documents to be marked through P.W.1 or P.W.11 and that recalling P.W.1 and P.W.11 and marking the documents cannot be termed as lacuna or to fill up the gap, but only to help the Court for arriving at a just decision in this case and that the Prosecution had reserved its right to file petition under Section 91 of Cr.P.C, after passing of order in these petitions.