The prosecution and the accused had, over time, become members of the same team working towards a common goal, the judge said.
Published Sep 08, 2023 | 8:24 PM ⚊ Updated Sep 08, 2023 | 8:36 PM
Justice Venkatesh stated that the DMK minister was committing the grossest abuse of the judicial process by repeatedly filing discharge petitions on grounds that have already been rejected. (Creative Commons)
Stating that the portals of the special court suddenly turned into a circus for DMK minister I Periyasamy, the Madras High Court, on Friday, 8 September — while initiating a suo motu revision against the discharge of the minister from a case booked under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) — said the court thought it fit to discharge the minister recklessly and that too under a provision that did not deal with discharge at all.
Justice Anand Venkatesh, while going through the flaws of the Special Court for MPs and MLAs, stated that the DMK minister was committing the grossest abuse of the judicial process by repeatedly filing discharge petitions on grounds that had already been considered and rejected right up to the Supreme Court.
Pointing to the discharge petition filed by the DMK minister on 21 February, under Section 19 of the PCA, Justice Venkatesh said, “However, unlike the earlier round of discharge, this time around, luck, chance or deliberate design smiled on A3 (Periyasamy) in the form of the special court.
“It is shocking that the special court, which is expected to possess at least a working knowledge of criminal law and procedure, has entertained a petition under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and discharged the accused knowing fully well that the provision did not deal with discharge at all.”
Further, the judge said: “It is even more shocking that this petition was entertained by the special court midway through trial in March 2023, after it had framed charges way back on 4 December, 2019. Unsurprisingly, in their counter-affidavit, the prosecution has not whispered a single word about the earlier discharge petition and the fact that the identical grounds raised in Crl.M.P.No.4204 of 2023 had been affirmed right up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”
He added, “This is because by March 2023, A3 (Periyasamy) had become a member of the state Cabinet, and the state prosecution and the accused had, by a natural progression of time, become members of the same team working towards a common goal.”
Stating that a case, which had hitherto progressed at a rate worse than a snail, suddenly progressed and finished at lightning speed, Justice Venkatesh pointed out that the discharge petition was filed on 21 February and, on the very next hearing, on 4 March, the special public prosecutor filed his counter and by the third hearing on 8 March, the court reserved the case for orders.
On 17 March, the special court allowed the petition filed by the minister and discharged Periyasamy from the case on the sole ground that the sanction given by the Speaker was invalid as the competent authority was the Governor and not the Speaker.
“While the criminal conspiracy between A1 to A3 to obtain the allotment of the TNHB flat in favour of A1 took 22 days, the collaborative effort between the prosecution, the defense counsel, and the court to discharge A3 was achieved in an equally incredible span of just 24 days,” the judge said.
“Having examined the records, this court is of the considered view that the special court has thrown all known norms of judicial propriety to the wind by allowing the discharge petition of A3 (Periyasamy) on the very same ground that had been negatived earlier by its predecessor and which order was later affirmed by this court as well as the Supreme Court… In its anxiety to discharge the accused, the special court, it appears, has discharged its judicial conscience as well,” said Judge Venkatesh.
He further stated, “It is beyond the endurance of judicially trained minds to turn a blind eye to such lapses, particularly when it is so palpable.”
The judge ordered notice to DMK Minister I Periyasamy and the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DV&AC).
While Periyasamy was the Housing Development Minister in the DMK regime from 2006 to 2011, he allotted a Tamil Nadu Housing Board (TNHB) plot to former chief minister M Karunanidhi’s personal security officer (PSO) C Ganesan, under the state government’s discretionary quota.
The case of the DV&AC is that said Ganesan made a false representation, stating that he was residing in a private house and paying exorbitant rent, but in fact was suppressing the fact that he was actually residing in the TNHB Housing Quarters and paying a paltry sum of around ₹1,180.
In his undated representation made to the chief minister, Ganesan requested for allotment of a plot in the public quota.
Even before the provisional allotment order was issued to Ganesan, he entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with a realtor and sold the land.
