P NALLAMMAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are three special Calendar Cases namely C.C. Nos. 11 of 1997, on the file of the 13th Additional Special Judge, Chennai; C.C. No. 17 of 1997, on the file of the 12th Additional Special Judge, Chennai and C.C. No. 1 of 1998 on the file of the 11th Additional Special Judge, Chennai. In C.C. No. 11 of 1997, there are two accused, first one being a former Minister in the State of Tamil Nadu and the second one being his wife. The second accused in that case is the sole petitioner in Crl. R.C.No. 190 of 1998. In C.C. No. 17 of 1997, there are seven accused and the first accused is a former Member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and former Minister and the other accused are his family members. The first and second accused in this case are the petitioners in Crl. R.C. No. 446 of 1998; the fifth accused in this case is the petitioner in Crl. R.C.No. 447 of 1998; the third and fourth accused are the petitioners in Crl. R.C.No. 448 of 1998; the seventh accused is the petitioner in Crl. R.C.No. 449 of 1998 and the sixth accused is the petitioner in Crl. R.C.No. 490 of 1998. In C.C. No. 1 of 1998, there are five accused, out of which the first accused was a Member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly as well as the Speaker in the said Assembly and the other accused are his family members. The first accused therein is the petitioner in Crl. R.C.No. 443 of 1998; the second accused is the petitioner in Crl. R.C.No. 443 of 1998; the third accused is the petitioner in Crl. R.C.No. 444 of 1998; the fourth accused is the petitioner in Crl. R.C.No. 445 of 1998 and the fifth accused is the petitioner in Crl. R.C. No. 491 of 1998. The first accused in C.C. No. 1 of 1998 is also the petitioner in Crl. R.C.No. 314 of 1998 and the accused 2 to 5 in that Calendar Case are the petitioners in Crl. R.C.No. 315 of 1998.

(2.) The second accused in C.C. No. 11 of 1997 filed Crl. M.P. No. 303 of 1997 seeking discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that was dismissed on merits. That order is challenged in Crl. R.C.No. 190 of 1998 by that accused. The petitions of the first and second accused; fifth accused; third and fourth accused; seventh accused and sixth accused in C.C. No. 17 of 1997 namely Crl. M.P. Nos. 230, 114, 115, 88 and 87 of 1998 under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking discharge, were dismissed on merits. Those orders are respectively challenged in Crl. R.C. Nos. 446 to 449 of 1998 and Crl. R.C.No. 490 of 1998. The applications of the first accused; second accused; third accused; fourth accused and the fifth accused in C.C. No. 1 of 1998, i.e. Crl. M.P. Nos. 288, 289, 290, 291 and 292 of 1998 under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking discharge were also dismissed on merits. They are challenged respectively in Crl. R.C. Nos. 442 to 445 and 491 of 1998. The first accused in C.C. No. 1 of 1998 filed a petition Crl. M.P. No. 240 of 1991 under Section 91 of the Code seeking production of certain records. That was dismissed on merits against which Crl. R.C.No. 314 of 1998 is before this Court. Accused 2 to 5 in that case filed Crl. M.P. Nos. 219 and 241 to 243 of 1998, all under Section 91 of the Code seeking production of certain records. All those petitions were dismissedon merits. Hence Crl. R.C.No. 315 of 1998 is before this Court. Against the first accused in C.C. No. 11 of 1997, a charge under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been framed. Against the second accused, a charge under the above referred to Section read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code is framed. In C.C. No. 17 of 1997, against the first accused a charge under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been framed. Against the rest of the accused, a charge under the above referred to Sections read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code has been framed. In C.C. No. 1 of 1998, a charge under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been framed against the first accused. Against the accused 2 to 5, a charge under the above referred to section read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code has been framed.

(3.) I heard Mr. T. Sudhanthiram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl. R.C. No. 190 of 1998; Mr. G. Krishnan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the other Revisions and Mr. R. Shanmugasundaram, learned State Public Prosecutor, assisted by Mr. N. R. Elango, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), for the respondents in all these Revisions.