In 2023, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh of the Madras High Court took up as many as six suo motu criminal revision petitions against the acquittal/discharge of different politicians from various criminal cases. The first case in which a verdict was delivered on February 26, 2024 turned out to be that of Rural Development Minister I. Periyasamy.
What is the charge against the Minister?
The incumbent Minister for Rural Development I. Periyasamy of Dindigul, had served as Minister for Housing during the previous Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) regime between 2006 and 2011. In March 2008, he had allotted a Tamil Nadu Housing Board’s (TNHB) ‘High Income Group’ plot under the Mogappair Eri Scheme to C. Ganesan who was the personal security officer (PSO) to then Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi. The plot was allotted under the State government’s discretionary quota by terming the beneficiary an “impeccable and honest government servant.”
After the DMK lost power in 2011 and the AIADMK returned to the treasury benches, the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC) registered a First Information Report (FIR) in February 2012 after finding that there was something seriously amiss about the manner in which the allotment was made.
According to the DVAC, the former PSO, serving in the rank of Inspector of Police in the Special Branch-Criminal Investigation Department’s (SB-CID) core cell, had given an undated application addressed to the then Chief Minister for allotment of the TNHB plot to him. In the application, he had made a false claim of residing at a private house on payment of an exorbitant rent, although he was actually residing at the TNHB residential quarters in K.K. Nagar in Chennai, for a monthly rent of ₹1,180.
The applicant had not enclosed any document to support his claim; neither did it bear the seal or signature of any officer to acknowledge receipt. Yet, it was numbered 5732/HB-5(I)/08 by the Housing Development Department on March 6, 2008 and an office note was initiated on the same day with a suggestion that Plot No.1023 in the ‘HIG’ category in the Mogappair Eri Scheme be allotted to him.
This application was signed by the Housing and Urban Development Secretary R. Sellamuthu on March 7, 2008 and was approved by the Miniser on March 10, 2008 when a Government Order was also issued at break-neck speed allotting the plot to the applicant. On March 18, 2008, TNHB issued a provisional allotment order and asked the beneficiary to pay ₹74.13 lakh on or before March 31, 2008.
Even before the provisional allotment was made, Ganesan entered into a joint development agreement with real estate developer Kavitha on March 16, 2008. As per the agreement, Kavitha would pay ₹74.13 lakh as a non refundable deposit and also allot 15% of the Undivided Share (UDS) to Ganesan after retaining the remaining 85%
Accordingly, Kavitha issued a cheque dated March 24, 2008 in favour of the Executive Engineer, TNHB, Mogappair Division. This cheque was sent by Ganesan to the Executive Engineer on March 27, 2008 and a regular allotment order was issued in his favor on March 28, 2008. Thus, the entire process commencing with the numbering of an undated application on March 6, 2008 took just 22 days to culminate into the issuance of a regular allotment order.
On August 7, 2008, the TNHB Executive Engineer executed a sale deed in favour of Ganesan who, in turn, executed a power of attorney in favour of Kavitha on January 19, 2009. The power of attorney was registered with the Konnur Sub Registrar on January 23, 2009. Using this power, Kavitha sold the plot to an individual Kalaiammal for a consideration of ₹1.01 crore and issued a cheque for ₹19.66 lakh in favour of Ganesan, for his 15% UDS. The cheque was encashed by Ganesan on July 20, 2009.
The DVAC had arraigned Ganesan, Kavitha and Mr. Periyasamy as the first, second and third accused persons respectively in the FIR registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), 1988 as well as provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Investigating Officer R. Murali examined 22 witnesses, collected 45 documents and filed a charge sheet before a special court for PCA cases in Chennai on March 25, 2013.
The charge sheet was filed after obtaining the sanction to prosecute Mr. Periyasamy from P. Dhanabal, then Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, on December 17, 2012. The special court for PCA cases took cognisance of the case on June 24, 2013 and ordered summons to be issued to the accused persons for the hearing on August 19, 2013.
Why did the High Court take suo motu notice of the case?
Justice Venkatesh, holding the MP/MLA portfolio in the High Court, had taken up the suo motu revision on September 8, 2023, after expressing shock over the way in which a special court for MP/MLA cases in Chennai had discharged Mr. Periyasamy from the corruption case on March 17, 2023 after he became Minister once again in 2021.
The judge took note that all the three accused had appeared through their counsel on August 19, 2013 before the special court for PCA cases and were served with the material documents. However, on September 4, 2013, the first accused person Ganesan filed a discharge petition before the special court, which dismissed the petition on August 6, 2015. When the matter was listed for framing of charges on August 31, 2015, the second accused person Kavitha filed a discharge petition, which also got dismissed on January 12, 2016.
After the first two accused persons prolonged the case by filing discharge petitions one after another, the third accused person, the Minister, filed a discharge petition on February 25, 2016 contending that the sanction to prosecute him should have been obtained from the Governor and not the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. The special court rejected his contention and dismissed the discharge plea on July 6, 2016.
“Thus, ended the three-year saga before the special court where A1 to A3 were playing musical chairs by filing discharge petitions one after another,” Justice Venkatesh said and pointed out that thereafter, the centre-stage moved to the High Court where the accused persons filed revision petitions in 2016 against the special court’s refusal to discharge them.
Though no stay was granted for the conduct of the trial, the third accused person successfully persuaded the High Court to pass an order on July 22, 2016 calling for the records of the case from the special court for PCA cases. “The result was that the entire proceedings before the special court stood neutralised,” Justice Venkatesh lamented.
Since the records were transmitted to the High Court, the special court had to simply adjourn the hearing in the corruption case for as many as 34 hearings till June 28, 2019. On July 5, 2019, the matter was transferred from the special court for PCA cases to the special court for MP/MLA cases which was created on the orders of the Supreme Court for fast tracking criminal cases against legislators. After this transfer, the special court for MP/MLA cases wrote to the High Court on September 3, 2019 requesting transmission of the case bundle and accordingly, this was returned on October 19, 2019.
“The special court for MP/MLA cases appears to have perfectly seen through the game plan of the accused,” the judge said and pointed out that it had insisted on the presence of all three of them on December 4, 2019 and framed charges against them. In March 2020, Mr. Periyasamy and Ganesan moved the High Court challenging the framing of charges against them and obtained an interim stay of all proceedings before the special court.
“Much to the relief of the accused, COVID-19 intervened and the proceedings were deferred from time to time,” the judge said. The interim stay order passed by the High Court expired on July 16, 2021 and was not extended thereafter. Therefore, the special court decided to examine the former Speaker P. Dhanabal but found that the DVAC officials had not cared to serve the summons to the witnesses since 2019. It obtained an undertaking from the police to ensure that the summons get served.
In the meantime, the High Court on October 29, 2021 reserved orders on the criminal revision petitions filed by the accused challenging the refusal to discharge them and also the charges framed against them. While reserving orders, it directed the special court to maintain status quo after observing that the orders would be delivered shortly. However, it took 11 months for the High Court to pronounce its orders on November 11, 2022 dismissing all the revision petitions. Though Mr. Periyasamy moved the Supreme Court against the dismissal, he withdrew his special leave petition on December 12, 2022.
The DMK had returned to power in May 2021 and Mr. Periyasamy became a Minister again. “It is seen from the records of the special court that there was a change in guard in May 2022 when the earlier judge who had unsuccessfully persevered to conduct trial was moved out and another successor was directed to assume charge,” Justice Venkatesh said and found that the special court had issued a summons to Mr. Dhanabal and examined him on February 15, 2023 thus marking the commencement of trial.
After the trial had commenced, the Minister filed a second petition for discharge on February 2023 on the same grounds that he had raised earlier. This time, it found favour with the special court which heard the petition within 21 days and passed an order on March 17, 2023 discharging the Minister from the case. Finding, prima facie, that the discharge order suffered from manifest illegality, the High Court had taken up a revision against it suo motu.
How did the suo motu proceedings end?
After ordering notice to the DVAC as well as the Minister in the suo motu proceedings, Justice Venkatesh heard elaborate arguments advanced by Advocate General P.S. Raman for the investigating agency and senior counsel Ranjit Kumar and A. Ramesh for the Minister. He appreciated the A-G for taking a fair stand that the second discharge petition filed by the Minister during the course of the trial was not maintainable and set aside the discharge order on February 26, 2024.
On finding that the case had got transferred from the special court for MP/MLA cases to the special court for PCA cases after the discharge of the Minister, the judge ordered re-transfer of the case to the special court for legislators within a month so that all three accused persons could face a trial. He directed all three of them to appear before the special court for MP/MLA cases on March 28, 2024 and furnish a bond for ₹1 lakh each with two sureties. Further, ordering conduct of the trial on a day-to-day basis, as far as practicable, he said, the trial must be completed before July 31, 2024 and a progress report must be submitted to the High Court’s Registrar General thereafter.
If the accused persons adopted any dilatory tactics, the special court could summon and remand them to judicial custody, the judge wrote, while allowing the suo motu revision.
