Justice Anand Venkatesh came down heavily on the Special Court for MPs/MLAs that acquitted the two ministers.
Published Aug 24, 2023 | 9:04 AM ⚊ Updated Aug 24, 2023 | 9:04 AM
Madras High Court. (Wikimedia)
The Madras High Court has taken up a suo motu revision against the acquittal of Tamil Nadu ministers KKSSR Ramachandran and Thangam Thennarasu in their respective disproportionate asset (DA) cases.
In doing so, it observed that the Special Court for cases against MPs and MLAs ought to have known that criminals and ethics were strange bedfellows, and that tactlessly mixing them up would produce a deadly cocktail, as has been done in the case involving the two leaders of the DMK, which is in power in the state.
Taking cognizance after going through the records of both the cases, Justice Anand Venkatesh stated that it was a deja vu moment for the high court as both orders revealed a well-orchestrated pattern.
“This court smelt a rat and called for the entire records of these two cases,” he said.
“‘Something is rotten in the state of Denmark,’ said Shakespeare in Hamlet. On examining the records, this court is of the considered opinion that something is very rotten in the Special Court for MP/MLA Cases at Srivilluputhur,” the judge said.
Pointing at the inappropriate delay made on the side of the accused in the case by filing discharge petitions, the judge said: “The Special Court appears to have liberally heard the discharge petition in instalments for over a year. Through the aforesaid collaborative effort of all concerned, the matter was successfully dragged on till the assembly elections in May 2021.
“In May 2021, there was a change in guard in the state and the accused were back in the saddle as the incumbent ministers for disaster and revenue management and finance. The stage was now set for the prosecution to self-destruct.”
In both cases, on various dates, after the DMK came to power, Police Inspector (Vigilance and Anti-Corruption) K Ramachandran, the investigation officer (IO), submitted an intimation at the Special Court for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC
After further investigation, the IO filed a closure report in both the cases stating that no offence had been made out and gave a clean chit to both the ministers.
The Special Court had, on this basis, “accepted the final closure report” and discharged the accused purportedly in exercise of powers under Section 239 Cr.P.C
“The aforesaid narrative reveals a sorry picture. The three stakeholders viz, the accused, the prosecution, and the Special Court have acted in tandem to reduce the administration of the criminal justice system to a complete farce. There are several things in this case that are seriously amiss”, Justice Venkatesh said.
First is the legality of the so-called “further investigation” by IO Ramachandran.
As pointed out earlier, in the so-called “further investigation” under Section 173(8) Ramachandran has handed down a clean chit to the accused thereby wiping out the findings and conclusions arrived by IO Shyamala Devi in her 2012 final report indicting the very same accused.
Stating that the very same modus operandi was followed in Thangam Thennarasu case, the judge said: “It is, therefore, clear that these machinations are part of a well-organised plot to ensure that the prosecutions against the two ministers before the very same court were short-circuited/subverted by self-destructing the prosecution case.”
“IO Ramachandran has cooked up a cocktail hitherto unknown to criminal law by filing a ‘final closure report’ purportedly under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. This was clearly mischievous since there can be only one final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C which in this case is the report of IO Shyamala Devi in 2012 on the basis of which cognizance was taken on 10.01.2013.
“It is, therefore, most curious that the Special Court entertained a hitherto unknown document called a ‘final closure report’ and that too under Section 173(8) Cr.PC almost 10 years later in 2022, setting up a completely new case that no offence had been committed. The strange and bizarre procedure adopted by the investigation agency and acquiesced to by the Special Court is unknown to criminal law”, the judge said.
Pointing out the flaws in the order of the Special Court, Justice Venkatesh stated that the equally surprising was the fact that the Special Court, while discharging the accused of the offences has simply set out the findings of IO Ramachandran and has blindly handed down an order holding that there was no ground to proceed against the accused persons.
“There is not a shred of independent reasoning in the order of discharge. The Special Court decided to literally play the role of Lady Justice by blindfolding itself to the deliberate and devious plot that was unfurling before it. The approach of the Special Court can find few parallels and if such jugglery is to be emulated elsewhere, the Special Courts trying MP/MLA’s cases in this state would be writing a collective obituary to the cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act.”
Pointing out that the Special Court for MPs and MLAs case (Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilluputhur) suffers from grave illegality which has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice, Justice Venkatesh said: “It is all too apparent that upon a change of power in the state in 2021, the identities of the accused and the prosecution were obliterated as all the players in the game suddenly found themselves belonging to the same team.
“Realising this, the umpire, ie, the Special Court, appears to have decided that the wisest course open to it was to get itself out hit wicket.”
Issuing notice to the Ministers Ramachandran and Thennarasu, Justice Venkatesh said: “This, therefore, is yet another instance of a criminal trial being derailed by the active design of those at the helm of political power.
“If this trend goes unchecked, our Special Courts meant for MP/MLA trials would become a playground for all sorts of condemnable practices which are handcrafted and orchestrated to subvert and derail the criminal justice system.”
