Rajan v. Prabhakaran

O R D E R This revision has been filed against the impugned order dated

07.11.2022 passed in unfiled Special Case ..../2022 on the file of the Special Court for trial of Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Tiruchirappalli.

¶2The petitioner made a complaint to the official respondents alleging that the first respondent herein is working as the Assistant Commissioner(Revenue), Trichy City Corporation, Trichy, being corrupt purchased a two storied RCC House building to an extent of 325 sq. ft and 635 sq. ft. The first respondent specifically averred that he purchased the house in his wife's name/2nd respondent herein. But, according to the petitioner, his wife is a housewife. So, he made a compliant to various Page No.2/8 authorities including the Director of Vigilance and Anticorruption, Chennai. Thereafter, he filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.18889 of 2021. The said writ petition was disposed with a direction to approach the petitioner to work out his remedy before the appropriate forum. Even in the writ petition, this Court specifically find that the allegation is false one inspite of that the petitioner filed another petition before the Special Court under Section 156 to take action against the respondents 1&2 herein. The learned Special Judge dismissed the application holding that it is not appropriate forum and hence, there is no prima facie case made out.

¶3The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the inquiry is made and the enquiry reveals that the second respondent is doing some small scale industries business and she is an income tax assessee and she has purchased the above said property by obtaining a loan from the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Thillai Nagar Branch, Trichy. In this regard, he filed a status report before this Court. Page No.3/8 Page No.4/8

¶4In view of the above said submission, it is clear that the second respondent, wife of first respondent is independently running small scale industry and she is an income tax assessee and the first respondent has purchased the above property in her name by obtaining loan from the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Thillainagar Branch, hence, the allegation that the first respondent amazed wealth is not correct and hence, this Court finds no merits in this revision petition.

¶5Hence, recording the above said statement made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the status report filed by him, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.

28.07.2023 Index :Yes/No

Internet :Yes/No PJL

To

1.The Director, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-corruption, Chennai. Page No.5/8

¶2The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶3The Section Officer, Criminal Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Page No.6/8 Page No.7/8

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J. PJL

28.07.2023 Page No.8/8

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 28.07.2023 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN Rajan .. Petitioner/Petitioner Vs. 1.Prabhakaran working as Assistant Commissioner(Revenue), Office of the City Corporation, Tiruchirappalli. 2.Thenmozhi .. Respondents/ Respondents 3.The Director, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-corruption, Chennai. 4.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, M.R.C.Nagar, Chennai. .. Respondents (R3 is suo motu impleaded as per the order of this Court dated 12.12.2022 by GIJ) (R4 is suo motu impleaded as per the order of this Court dated 03.02.2023 by GIJ) PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the impugned Page No.1/8 order dated 07.11.2022 passed in unfiled Special Case ..../2022 on the file of the Special Court for trial of Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Tiruchirappalli. For Petitioner : Mr.I.Pinaygash For Respondents : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor For R3