{"id":105700,"date":"2002-01-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-01-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-jayalalithaa-vs-state-represented-by-on-10-january-2002"},"modified":"2016-02-11T17:31:48","modified_gmt":"2016-02-11T12:01:48","slug":"j-jayalalithaa-vs-state-represented-by-on-10-january-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-jayalalithaa-vs-state-represented-by-on-10-january-2002","title":{"rendered":"J.Jayalalithaa vs State Represented By on 10 January, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
J.Jayalalithaa vs State Represented By on 10 January, 2002<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 10\/01\/2002  \n\nCORAM:   \n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN           \n\nCrl.O.P.Nos. 21969 of 2001 and crl.o.p. no. 22506 of 2001\n\nCrl.O.P.No.21969 of 2001 \n\nJ.Jayalalithaa                                          .. Petitioner\n\nVs \n\n1. State Represented by \n    Superintendent of Police\n    Special Investigation Cell\n    Vigilance and Anti-Corruption\n    Chennai.\n2. J.Ilavarasi\n3. .Sasikala\n4. Vn.Sudhagaran                                .. Respondents \n\n\nFor Petitioner          :       Mr.K.Asokan  \n                                Senior Counsel \nFor Respondents :       Mr.I.Subramaniam,         \n                                Public Prosecutor for R1\n                                Mr.R.Shanmugasudnaram,    \n                                Senior Counsel and \n                                Mr.N.R.Elango  Amicus Curaie  \n\nCrl.O.P.No.22506 of 2001 \n\nT.T.V.Dhinakaran                                .. Petitioner\n\nVs \n\nState Represented by \nSuperintendent of Police\nSpecial Investigation Cell\nVigilance and Anti-Corruption\nChennai.                                        .. Respondent \n\n\nFor Petitioner          :       Mr.B.Kumar  \n                                Senior Counsel \nFor Respondent          :       Mr.I.Subramaniam,         \n                                Public Prosecutor\n                                Mr.R.Shanmugasudnaram,    \n                                Senior Counsel and \n                                Mr.N.R.Elango  Amicus Curaie  \n\n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n
        1.1.  The  aforesaid  petitions  raise  an  interesting  but  somewhat
\ncomplex question for adjudication as to the procedure to be followed after the
\nfurther  investigation  permitted  under  Section  173(8)  of Code of Criminal
\nProcedure  with  reference  to  the  evidence  gathered  and  vital  materials
\ncollected,  pursuant to the Letters Rogatory issued and the undertakings given
\nunder Section 166A of C ode of Criminal Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
        1.2.  In this regard, it is apt to extract Sections 166A  and  173  of
\nCode  of  Criminal  Procedure, for better appreciation of issues raised in the
\nabove petitions:\n<\/p>\n
Section 166A  Cr.P.C.:    Letter  of  request  to  competent  authority   for
\ninvestigation in a country or place outside India:  –\n<\/p>\n
(1)  Notwithstanding  anything contained in this Code, if, in the course of an
\ninvestigation into an offence, an application is  made  by  the  investigating
\nofficer  or  any  officer  superior  in rank to the investigating officer that
\nevidence may be available in a country or place outside  India,  any  Criminal
\nCourt may issue a letter of request to a Court or an authority in that country
\nor  place  competent  to  deal  with such request to examine orally any person
\nsupposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case and  to
\nrecord  his  statement  made  in  the  course  of such examination and also to
\nrequire such person or any other person to produce any document or thing which
\nmay be in his possession pertaining  to  the  case  and  to  forward  all  the
\nevidence  so  taken  or  collected  or the authenticated copies thereof or the
\nthing so collected to the Court issuing such letter.\n<\/p>\n
(2) The letter of request shall be  transmitted  in  such  manner  as  Central
\nGovernment may specify in this behalf.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  Every  statement recorded or document or thing received under sub-section
\n(1) shall be deemed  to  be  the  evidence  collected  during  the  course  of
\ninvestigation under this Chapter.\n<\/p>\n
Section 173 Cr.P.C.:  Report of police office on completion of investigation:\n<\/p>\n
–\n<\/p>\n
(1)Every   investigation   under  this  chapter  shall  be  completed  without
\nunnecessary delay.\n<\/p>\n
(2)(i) As soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station
\nshall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognisance of the offence on a
\npolice report, a report in  the  form  prescribed  by  the  State  Government,
\nstating-\n<\/p>\n
(a)the names of the parties;\n<\/p>\n
(b)the nature of the information;\n<\/p>\n
(c)the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances
\nof the case;\n<\/p>\n
(d)whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom;\n<\/p>\n
(e)whether the accused has been arrested;\n<\/p>\n
(f)whether  the accused has been released on his bond and, if so, whether with
\nor without sureties;\n<\/p>\n
(g)whether he has been forwarded in custody under Section 170.\n<\/p>\n
(ii) The officer shall also communicate, in such manner as may  be  prescribed
\nby  the  State  Government,  the action taken by him to the person, if any; by
\nwhom the information relating to the  commission  of  the  offence  was  first
\ngiven.\n<\/p>\n
(3)Where  a  superior  officer of police has been appointed under Section 158,
\nthe report shall, in any case in which the  State  Government  by  general  or
\nspecial  order  so  directs,  be  submitted  through that officer, and he may,
\npending the orders of the Magistrate, direct the  officer  in  charge  of  the
\npolice station to make further investigation.\n<\/p>\n
(4)Whenever  it  appears  from  a report forwarded under this section that the
\naccused has been released on his bond, the Magistrate shall  make  such  order
\nfor the discharge of such bond or otherwise as he thinks fit.
\n(5)When  such report is in respect of a case to which Section 170 applies, the
\npolice officer shall forward to the Magistrate along with the report
\na.all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes
\nto rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation:
\nb.the statements recorded under Section  161  of  all  the  persons  whom  the
\nprosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
(6)If  the police officer is of opinion that any part of any such statement is
\nnot relevant to the subject matter of the proceedings or that  its  disclosure
\nto  the accused is not essential in the interest of justice and is inexpedient
\nin the public interest, he shall indicate the part of the statement and append
\na note requesting the Magistrate to exclude that part from the  copies  to  be
\ngranted to the accused and stating his reasons for making such request.
\n(7)Where  the  police officer investigating the case finds it convenient so to
\ndo, he may furnish to the accused copies  of  all  or  any  of  the  documents
\nreferred to in sub-section (5).\n<\/p>\n
(8)Notwithstanding  in  this  section  shall  be  deemed  to  preclude further
\ninvestigation in respect of an offence after a report under subsection (2) has
\nbeen forwarded to the Magistrate  and,  where  upon  such  investigation,  the
\nofficer  in  charge  of  the  police station obtains further evidence, oral or
\ndocumentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further  report  or  reports
\nregarding  such  evidence  in  the  form  prescribed;  and  the  provisions of
\nsub-section (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be,  apply  in  relation  to  such
\nreport  or  reports  as  they  apply  in  relation to a report forwarded under
\nsub-section (2).\n<\/p>\n
(Emphasis supplied) <\/p>\n
        2.1.  The petitioners in Crl.O.P.Nos.21969 and 22506 of 2001  are  the
\naccused  A1 and A2 respectively in C.C.No.2 of 2001 on the file of the learned
\nPrincipal  Sessions  Judge,   Chennai,   wherein,   pursuant   to   a   F.I.R.
\nNo.2-AC2000, dated 2.9.2000, filed by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance
\n& Anti-Corruption, Special Investigation, Chennai ( hereinafter referred to as
\nthe  respondent  prosecution),  the  petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.21969 of 2001,
\nwith due sanction accorded by the Governor of Tamil  Nadu,  in  G.O.Ms.No.330,
\nPublic  (SC)  Department,  dated  22  .3.2001,  and  by  a  charge sheet dated
\n23.3.2001, was charged for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 120-B
\nIPC r\/w Section 13(2) r\/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act,  1988  and
\npunishable  under  Section  13(2) r\/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption
\nAct, 19 88 and the petitioner in Crl.O.P.22506 of 2001  was  charged  for  the
\nalleged  offence  punishable  under  Sections  120-B IPC r\/w Section 13(2) r\/w
\n13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and  punishable  under  Section
\n109  Indian Penal Code r\/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,
\nalleging that the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.21969 of 2001, during her tenure as
\nChief Minister of Tamil Nadu from 1.7.19 91 to  30.4.1996,  had  entered  into
\ncriminal  conspiracy  with  her  close  associate,  viz.,  the  petitioner  in
\nCrl.O.P.No.22506 of 2001, and in pursuance of the said conspiracy,  petitioner
\nin  Crl.O.P.No.22506  of  20  01  had  funnelled  out  of  India  the funds of
\npetitioner in Crl.O.P.No.2 1969 of 2001, to the countries such  as  Singapore,
\nMalaysia,   United  Kingdom  and  Canary  Islands,  in  contravention  of  the
\nprovisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act  (FERA)  and  Prevention  of
\nCorruption  Act, 1988, and held pecuniary resources and properties outside the
\ncountry on behalf of the  petitioner  in  Crl.O.P.No.21969  of  2001  and  was
\ninvesting   huge   amounts   outside   India   on  behalf  the  petitioner  in
\nCrl.O.P.No.21969 of 2001.\n<\/p>\n
2.2.  Aggrieved by the summons issued under Section 61  of  Code  of  Criminal
\nProcedure, requiring the attendance of the petitioners herein on 5.11.2001, to
\nanswer  the  said  charges  in  C.C.No.2  of  2001  on the file of the learned
\nPrincipal Sessions Judge, Chennai, both the  petitioners  seek  to  quash  the
\norders of summon.\n<\/p>\n
3.   Mr.K.Asokan,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the petitioner in
\nCrl.O.P.No.21969 of 2001, highlighted the following materials  in  support  of
\nhis contentions:\n<\/p>\n
(i)The  petitioner  in  Crl.O.P.No.21969  of  2001  is already charged for the
\nalleged offence punishable under Sections 120-B and 109 Indian Penal Code  and
\nSection  13(2)  r\/w  13(1)(e)  of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in Crime
\nNo.13\/AC\/96, Head  Quarters,  registered  on  18.9.96,  on  the  file  of  the
\nrespondent  prosecution,  pursuant  to which, a charge sheet was also filed by
\nthe respondent prosecution, alleging that she is in  possession  of  pecuniary
\nresources  and  properties  in  her  name  and in the names of Ms.N.Sassikala,
\nMr.Vn.Sudhagaran, and Ms.   Ilavrasi,  who  are  arrayed  as  A2,  A3  and  A4
\nrespectively in  the  said  Crime No.  13\/AC\/96, Head Quarters, on the file of
\nthe respondent prosecution, disproportionate to known source of income of  the
\npetitioner  in  Crl.O.P.No.21969  of 2001, during her tenure as Chief Minister
\nfrom 1.7.1 991 to 30.4.1996 (herein after referred to as the Check  Period),
\nand accordingly, the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.21969 of 2001 is facing trial in
\nthe  Spl.C.C.No.7  of  1997  on  the file of the learned Special Judge No.1\/XI
\nAdditional Sessions Judge, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the Designated
\nCourt), for the said charges, along  with  Ms.N.Sassikala,  Mr.Vn.Sudhagaran,
\nand  Ms.Ilavarasi,  A2, A3 and A4 respectively, in Spl.C.C.No.7 of 1997 on the
\nfile of the Designated Court;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)Referring to the F.I.R.  dated 2.9.2000 in  F.I.R.    No.2\/AC\/2000\/HQ,  as
\nwell  as  the consequential charge sheet dated 23.3.2001, filed in C.C.No.2 of
\n2001  on  the  file  of  the  learned  Principal  Sessions   Judge,   Chennai,
\nMr.K.Asokan,  contends  that  the same a re based on the evidence gathered and
\nthe vital materials  collected  during  further  investigation  under  Section
\n173(8)  of  Code  of  Criminal Procedure and pursuant to the orders made under
\nSection 166A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for Letters  Rogatory  made  in
\nSpl.C.C.No.7 of 1997 on the file of the Designated Court, wherein undertakings
\nwere  given  to  the effect that the results of the investigation so conducted
\npursuant to the further investigation  and  the  Letters  Rogatory,  shall  be
\nspecifically  used  only  in  the proceedings arising out of the said criminal
\ncase, namely Spl.C.C.No.7 of 1997, and therefore, the  said  materials  should
\nnot  have been used to prosecute the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.21969 of 2001 in
\nthe present case, namely C.C.No.2 of 2001 on the file of the learned Principal
\nSessions Judge, Chennai;\n<\/p>\n
(iii)Placing reliance on the decision in ARJUNA KUMAR Vs.    STATE  OF  ORISSA
\nreported in   1989  Crl.L.J.    449,  Mr.K.Asokan,  contends  that  the  first
\nrespondent prosecution, having sought permission for further investigation  in
\nSpl.C.C.No.7  of  1997  from  the  Designated  Court,  ought to have filed the
\nmaterials gathered during the further investigation only as a  further  report
\nin Spl.C.C.No.7 of 1997 before the Designated Court, but not as an independent
\nand fresh F.I.R.    dated 2.9.2000, bearing F.I.R.  No.2\/AC\/2000\/HQ, which has
\nculminated into the charge sheet dated 23.3.2001 in C.C.No.2 of  2001  on  the
\nfile of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai;\n<\/p>\n
(iv)The   petitioner  in  Crl.O.P.No.21969  of  2001  is  already  charged  in
\nSpl.C.C.No.7 of 1997 on the file of the  Designated  Court,  for  the  offence
\npunishable  under  Section  13(1)(e)  of  the  Prevention  of  Corruption Act,
\nrelating to the alleged possession of wealth,  viz.,  pecuniary  resources  as
\nwell  as  properties,  held  by  herself  as  well as by others on her behalf,
\ndisproportionate to her known source of income, during  her  tenure  as  Chief
\nMinister from 1.7.1991 to 30.4.1996; and when the said Spl.C.C.No.7 of 1997 is
\nstill  pending  before the Designated Court, any further evidence gathered and
\nmaterials collected by the investigating agency during further  investigation,
\nrelating  to the alleged wealth disproportionate to her known source of income
\nduring the same check period, should have been filed only as a further  report
\nin Spl.C.C.No.7  of  1997  before  the  Designated  Court.    In  this regard,
\nMr.K.Asokan, learned senior  counsel,  places  reliance  on  the  decision  in
\nSURENDRA NATH Vs.  STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH reported in 2000 Crl.L.J.  1745;\n<\/p>\n
(v)If  the  further  investigation  under  Section  173(8) of Code of Criminal
\nProcedure disclose that any other person, in the instant case  the  petitioner
\nin Crl.O.P.No.22506 of 2001, not being an accused in the criminal case already
\npending,  viz.,  Spl.C.C.No.7  of  1997  before the Designated Court, has also
\ncommitted any offence for which he could be tried together with  the  accused,
\nviz.  the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.21969 of 2001, in the criminal case already
\npending, viz.,  Spl.C.C.   No.7 of 1997 before the Designated Court, he may be
\nproceeded with by the Designated Court for the offence which appears  to  have
\nbeen committed by him, as per Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure, based
\non such further report;\n<\/p>\n
(vi)As   and   when  a  further  report  is  filed  pursuant  to  the  further
\ninvestigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal  Procedure  in  the
\ncriminal  case  already  pending  in  Spl.C.C.No.7  of  1997,  it  is  for the
\nDesignated Court to take appropriate  decision  on  such  further  report  and
\nproceed  in  accordance  with  law;  and  in which event, the applicability of
\nSub-section 2 to 6 to Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure would make  it
\nclear  that  each  of  the  subsequent  reports made further would also become
\nreport for the purpose of Section 173(2) of Code  of  Criminal  Procedure,  as
\nheld in J.ALEXANDER Vs.  STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 1996 Crl.L.J.  592;\n<\/p>\n
(vii)Relying on  the  decision  of  the Apex Court in T.T.ANTONY Vs.  STATE OF
\nKERALA reported in 2001(6) SCC 181, Mr.K.Asokan, contends that there cannot be
\na second or successive F.I.R filed in  connection  with  the  same  cognisable
\noffence  alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction,
\nin respect of which either investigation is under way or a  final  report  had
\nalready  been  forwarded  under  Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure,
\npursuant to the first F.I.  R.  and the trial is  being  proceeded  with;  and
\nsince  the  petitioner  in  Crl.O.P.No.21969 of 2001 is already facing charges
\nrelating to the alleged offence  punishable  under  Section  13(1)(e)  of  the
\nPrevention  of Corruption Act, relating to the alleged possession of pecuniary
\nresources  and  properties  by  herself  or   by   others   on   her   behalf,
\ndisproportionate  to  known  source  of  her income during her tenure as Chief
\nMinister from 1.7.1991 to  30.4.1996,  in  Spl.C.C.No.7  of  1997  before  the
\nDesignated Court,  the  registration  of  second  F.I.R.   No.2-AC2000, dated
\n2.9.2000 and filing of the final report dated 23.3.2001 and the  consequential
\nsummons  issued  in  C.C.No.2  of  2001  on  the file of the learned Principal
\nSessions Judge, Chennai, is illegal and the same amounts  to  double  jeopardy
\nviolating  Article  20(2)  and infringes the personal liberty guaranteed under
\nArticle 21 of the Constitution of India;\n<\/p>\n
(viii)As the basic materials relied upon by the investigating  agency  in  the
\nsubsequent F.I.R.    No.2-AC2000,  dated  2.9.2000, which culminated into the
\nfinal report dated 23.3.2001 in C.C.No.2 of 2001 on the file  of  the  learned
\nPrincipal  Sessions  Judge,  Chennai,  were  collected  pursuant to the orders
\nobtained in Spl.C.C.No.7 of 1997 from the Designated Court under Section  166A
\nof  the Code of Criminal Procedure, the initiation of the separate proceedings
\nin C.C.No.2 of 2001 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai,  and
\nthe  consequential  issuance  of  the  impugned summons in C.C.No.2 of 2001 is
\ncontrary to the spirit and substance of the said Letters Rogatory;\n<\/p>\n
(ix)The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, has failed to exercise  his
\njudicial  discretion  while  taking  cognisance  of  the  offence based on the
\nevidence and materials placed before him in C.C.No.2 of 2  001,  as  the  same
\ncannot  be relied upon in the eye of law, in view of the undertakings given in
\nthe Letters Rogatory issued under Section 1 66A of Code of Criminal Procedure;
\nnor the  learned  Principal  Sessions  Judge,  Chennai,  considered  that  the
\nsummoning  of  the  petitioners  in  C.C.No.2  of  2001,  under  the facts and
\ncircumstances explained above, is not a matter of  course,  but,  as  held  in
\nM\/s.PEPSI FOODS LTD.   &  ANR.    Vs.    SPECIAL  JUDICIAL  MAGISTRATE  & ORS.
\nreported in 1998 (1) LW ( Crl.) 72, it has got serious  repercussions  causing
\nagony  of criminal trial; and therefore, the impugned summons are liable to be
\nquashed; and\n<\/p>\n
(x)Alternatively, under the facts and circumstances of the case, Mr.   Asokan,
\nseeks  a  direction  to  the investigating agency to withdraw the final report
\ndated 23.3.2001 filed in C.C.No.2 of  2001,  from  the  file  of  the  learned
\nPrincipal Sessions Judge, Chennai, and to file the same as a further report in
\nSpl.C.C.No.7  of  1997 before the Designated Court; or otherwise to direct the
\nlearned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, to transfer the records relating to
\nthe final  report  dated  23  .3.2001  filed  in  C.C.No.2  of  2001  and  the
\nproceedings  thereon  to  the  Designated  Court,  and  to  try  the same with
\nSpl.C.C.No.7 of 1997 together.\n<\/p>\n
4.1.  Mr.B.Kumar, learned senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  petitioner  in
\nCrl.O.P.No.22506 of  2001,  even though adopts the arguments of Mr.  K.Asokan,
\nlearned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.   O.P.No.21969  of
\n2001,  challenging  the  right of the investigating agency to register a fresh
\nF.I.R.  bearing No.2-AC-2000, dated 2.9.2000, and to file  a  separate  charge
\nsheet  dated  23.3.2001  in  C.C.No.2  of  2001  before  the learned Principal
\nSessions Judge, Chennai, which culminated into the issuance  of  the  impugned
\nsummons  in  C.C.No.2  of  2001,  contends  that  the same are contrary to the
\nprocedure prescribed under Sections 166A and 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure
\nand the spirit and substance of the  Letters  Rogatory  and  the  undertakings
\ngiven thereunder.\n<\/p>\n
4.2.   Once  initiation of such proceedings in C.C.No.2 of 2001 on the file of
\nthe learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, itself vitiates for  illegality
\nand want of jurisdiction, Mr.B.Kumar, contends that there is no legal sanctity
\nfor  the  summons issued in C.C.No.2 of 2001 by the learned Principal Sessions
\nJudge, Chennai, requiring the attendance of the petitioners herein  to  answer
\nthe  charges  framed  there under; and therefore, there is no necessity either
\nfor the respondent prosecution to withdraw the final report dated 23.3.2001 in
\nC.C.No.2 of 2001 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge,  Chennai
\nand  to  file  the same as a further report in Spl.C.C.No.7 of 1997 before the
\nDesignated Court; or to direct the learned Principal Sessions Judge,  Chennai,
\nto  transfer the said records relating to the final report dated 23.3.2001 and
\nthe proceedings in C.C.No.2 of 2001 to the Designated Court, as it is only for
\nthe investigating agency to take appropriate decision in the matter, under the
\nCode of Criminal Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
5.  On behalf of the respondent prosecution, Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned Advocate
\nGeneral, and Mr.I.Subramaniam, learned Public Prosecutor, invited my attention
\nto the following aspects:\n<\/p>\n
(i)Making available the entire records relating to the  Letters  Rogatory  and
\nthe  consequential  undertakings  made  under Section 166A of Code of Criminal
\nProcedure, during further investigation under  Section  17  3(8)  of  Code  of
\nCriminal  Procedure  in  Spl.C.C.No.7  of  1997, as well as the entire records
\nrelating to C.C.No.2 of 2001 pending before  the  learned  Principal  Sessions
\nJudge,  Chennai,  Mr.N.R.Chandran,  learned Advocate General, submits that the
\nsame are binding on the respondent prosecution, or otherwise  it  would  be  a
\nviolation  to  the  due process of law; and the evidence collected pursuant to
\nLetters Rogatory issued under Section 166-A  of  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure
\nshould   have  been  used  against  the  petitioners,  legitimately,  only  in
\nSpl.C.C.No.7 of 1997 before the  Designated  Court.    But  nevertheless,  the
\nlearned  Advocate  General  left  the  matter to the decision of this Court to
\nproceed further;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)The only option for the respondent prosecution is to  place  the  evidence
\ngathered  and materials collected during further investigation in Spl.C.C.No.7
\nof 1997, as a further report in Spl.C.C.No.7 of  1997  before  the  Designated
\nCourt, but not to proceed independently in C.C.No.2 of 2001 before the learned
\nPrincipal  Ses  sions  Judge,  Chennai,  inasmuch as the charging offence made
\nagainst the petitioner in Crl.O.  P.No.21969 of 2001,  in  both  the  criminal
\ncases  are  one  and  the  same,  viz.,  the  offence punishable under Section
\n13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act;\n<\/p>\n
(iii)The allegation against  the  petitioner  in  Crl.O.P.No.21969  of  200  1
\nneither  fall  under Section 220(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure constituting
\nmore offences said to have been committed by the petitioners herein nor it  is
\ndoubtful for the prosecution as to what offence is said to have been committed
\nby the petitioners, as per Section 221(1 ) Code of Criminal Procedure;\n<\/p>\n
(iv)Whether  the  property is found in India or outside India, is not relevant
\nto attract Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,  inasmuch  as
\nthe  pecuniary resources and property found in possession, disproportionate to
\nknown source of income of the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.21969 of  2001,  during
\nher  tenure  as Chief Minister from 1.7.1991 to 30.4.1996 alone is required to
\nbe satisfactorily accounted  under  Section  13(1)(e)  of  the  Prevention  of
\nCorruption Act, except for imposing fine under Section 16 of the Prevention of
\nCorruption Act;\n<\/p>\n
(v)The  alleged  accumulation  of  disproportionate  pecuniary  resources  and
\nproperties by the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.21969 of 2001 or by others  on  her
\nbehalf,  during  her tenure as Chief Minister, cannot be said to be a distinct
\noffence with reference to each of the properties,  empowering  the  respondent
\nprosecution  to  file  a  separate First Information Report \/ final report for
\neach of the properties.  In this regard, he relies upon the decision  in  T.T.
\nANTONY Vs.  STATE OF KERALA reported in 2001 (6) SCC 181;\n<\/p>\n
(vi)To  constitute  an  offence  under  Sections 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of
\nCorruption  Act,  what  is  relevant  is  pecuniary  resources  or  properties
\ndisproportionate  to known source of income, which could not be satisfactorily
\naccounted by the public servant; and the resources should be with reference to
\na definite check period; and\n<\/p>\n
(vii)The sum total of all the pecuniary resources and the properties  as  well
\nas  the  sum  total of all known sources of income during the check period are
\nbasic criteria to constitute the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e)  of
\nPrevention of  Corruption Act.  If so, neither the assets nor the known source
\nof income can be split up into two individual  components  to  constitute  the
\nsaid offence.\n<\/p>\n
6.   The  learned  counsel  for  respondents  2  to  4,  who  are impleaded in
\nCrl.O.P.No.21969 of 2001, by orders of this Court dated 11.12.2001, 11.12.2001
\nand 12.12.2001 in Crl.M.P.Nos.8930, 8931, 9026 of 2001, respectively, are  A4,
\nA2 and A3 in Spl.C.C.No.7 of 1997 on the file of the Designated Court, made an
\nendorsement  that  they  will  not  be  prejudiced to try all or any number of
\ncharges framed against them together under Sections 218(1) and 223 of Code  of
\nCriminal Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
7.1.   It is true, the Public Prosecutor, being an officer of the Court, is to
\ndeal with a different field in the administration of justice  and  he  is  not
\ninvolved  in investigation, as the investigation and prosecution are different
\naspects of the administration of criminal justice, as  held  in  R.SARALA  Vs.
\nT.S.VELU  reported  in  2000  SCC  (Cri) 823; and it is the duty of the Public
\nProsecutor to act fairly and not merely to obtain conviction by any means fair
\nor foul, and if the accused is entitled to any legitimate benefit, the  Public
\nProsecutor  should  make  it available to him and inform the Court even if the
\ndefence counsel overlook it, as held in SHIV KUMAR Vs.  HUKAM  CHAND  reported
\nin 1999 (7) SCC 467.\n<\/p>\n
7.2.   However,  considering  the  public  importance, sensitive nature of the
\nallegations  made  against  the  petitioners  in  the  above  O.P.s  and   the
\ndesirability  that  duty  to act judicially demands justice should not only be
\ndone, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be  done  in  order  to
\nrepudiate  judicial  fallacy,  failing which the judicial fairness and rule of
\nlaw would be at stake, shaking the  confidence  of  the  public  in  the  very
\njudiciary,  which  vacuum  cannot  be  filled  up  at  any  point of time in a
\ndemocratic system, I deem it proper  to  hear  Mr.R.Shanmugasundaram,  learned
\nSenior  Counsel  and  former  Public  Prosecutor,  and  Mr.N.R.Elango,  former
\nGovernment Advocate (Criminal Side), assisting this Court in  these  petitions
\nas Amicus Curiae.\n<\/p>\n
8.   The  gist  of  the  contentions  of Mr.R.Shanmugasundaram, learned Senior
\nCounsel appearing as Amicus Curiae, are narrated as follows:\n<\/p>\n
i.The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai is a competent  Special  Judge
\nappointed  under  Section  3  of  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  Act, by the
\nGovernment to try the offence punishable under Prevention  of  Corruption  Act
\nand  the  petitioners  are  prosecuted  before  the learned Principal Sessions
\nJudge, Chennai, in C.C.No.2 of 2001 with due sanction of the  Government  made
\nin  G.O.Ms.No.330,  Public  (S.C.) Department, dated 22.3.2001, and therefore,
\nthe proceedings in C.C.No.2 of 200 1 on the  file  of  the  learned  Principal
\nSessions Judge, Chennai, do not suffer any lack of jurisdiction;
\nii.   Whether  the  petitioners  are  tried  by the learned Principal Sessions
\nJudge, Chennai, viz., the Special Judge for the area,  or  by  the  Designated
\nCourt,  appointed under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, they
\nare not prejudiced in any manner, as they would be tried by  a  Judge  of  the
\nsame class and by the same procedure;\n<\/p>\n
iii.The  charge in Spl.C.C.No.7 of 1997 on the file of the Designated Court is
\nrelated to the alleged  pecuniary  resources  and  properties  accumulated  in
\nIndia,  whereas,  the  charge  in  C.C.No.2 of 2001 on the file of the learned
\nPrincipal Sessions Judge, Chennai, is related to the alleged  accumulation  of
\npecuniary  resources  and  properties identified outside India; and therefore,
\nthe alleged offences in the said cases were not committed during the course of
\nsame transaction; but they are distinct offence, and  hence,  they  should  be
\ntried separately, in view of Section 16 of Prevention of Corruption Act, which
\nempowers the court in fixing the amount of fine, taking into consideration the
\namount  or  value  of  each  pecuniary resource or property that is questioned
\nseparately in the said criminal cases.  In this regard he places  reliance  on
\ndecision in  RAM LAL NARANG Vs.  STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) reported in 1979
\nSCC (Cri) 479 and M.KRISHNA Vs.  STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 1999 SCC (Cri)
\n39;\n<\/p>\n
iv.Even though the prosecution was permitted for further  investigation  under
\nSection  173(8)  of  the Code of Criminal Procedure, if a different offence is
\nmade out on the basis of the evidence gathered and materials collected  during
\nthe  further  investigation,  the ultimate report of the further investigation
\nneed not necessarily be tried along with the charge already pending before the
\nCourt, which permitted such further investigation, and therefore, two  F.I.Rs.
\ncan be filed against the same accused when there are rival versions in respect
\nof the  same episode, as held in M.KRISHNA Vs.  STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in
\n1 999 SCC (Cri) 397 and KARI CHOUDHARY Vs.  SITA DEVI  &  OTHERS  reported  in
\n2001 SCCL.  COM 898;\n<\/p>\n
v.Assuming  the  prosecution  has  wrongly  filed  the  ultimate report of the
\nfurther investigation dated 23.3.2001, before the learned  Principal  Sessions
\nJudge,  Chennai,  instead  of filing the same before the Designated Court, the
\nsame shall not vitiate the enquiry, trial  or  other  proceedings  before  the
\nlearned  Principal  Sessions Judge, Chennai, unless it appears that such error
\nhas in fact occasioned a failure of  justice,  as  per  Section  462  Code  of
\nCriminal  Procedure; and any such irregularity is curable under Section 460(e)
\nof Code of Criminal Procedure.  In this regard,  reliance  is  placed  on  the
\ndecision in TRISUNS CHEMICAL INDUSTRY Vs.  RAJESH AGARWAL reported in 2000 SCC
\n(Cri)  47,  wherein  the  Apex  Court  has  held  that  the  Magistrate taking
\ncognisance of offence need not have territorial jurisdiction to try  the  case
\nas well, because the mere want of territorial jurisdiction is not a peremptory
\ncharacter;  and  the only exception to the above rule is that unless the Court
\nhas no jurisdiction to try a particular kind of offence,  which  goes  to  the
\nroot  of  the  matter, any transgression of it makes the entire trial void, as
\nheld in RAJ KUMARI Vs.  DEV RAJ reported in AIR 1977 SC 1101;
\nvi.Each set of facts relating to an act or omission made punishable by any law
\nfor the time being in force  shall  constitute  a  distinct  offence,  as  per
\nSection  3(38)  of  General  Clauses  Act and Section 2(n) of Code of Criminal
\nProcedure r\/w Section 33 of Indian Penal Code; but the  mere  satisfaction  of
\nthe  ingredients of different sets of fact relating to similar act or omission
\nmade punishable by any law for the time being in force, shall  not  by  itself
\nrender  such  different  set  of facts as a single offence, as held in BHAGWAN
\nSWARUP Vs.  STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in AIR  1965  SC  682,  KHARKAN  Vs.
\nSTATE  OF  UTTAR  PRADESH  reported in AIR 1965 SC 83 and AMRITLAL RATILAL Vs.
\nSTATE OF GUJARAT reported in AIR 1981 SC 301;\n<\/p>\n
vii.It is not the mere  acquisition  of  the  property  which  constitutes  an
\noffence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, but
\nthe  failure to satisfactorily account the sources for the same, in proportion
\nto known sources of income of the public servant constitute the  offence,  as,
\nwhat  is  punishable  is  possession  coupled with failure to account for, and
\ntherefore, the failure to satisfactorily explain the sources for possession of
\neach property  constitutes  a  separate  and  distinct  offence,  as  held  in
\nM.KRISHNAREDDY Vs.  STATE OF A.P.  reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 801 and STATE OF
\nMAHARASHTRA Vs.    WASUDEO  RAMACHANDRA  reported in AIR 1981 SC 1186; and the
\npublic servant is required to satisfactorily account the  pecuniary  resources
\nand  property held in his\/her possession or on his\/her behalf that are alleged
\nto be disproportionate to his\/her known source  of  income,  as  held  in  (a)
\nC.D.S.  SWAMY  Vs.   THE STATE reported in AIR 1960 SC 7; (b) SAJJAN SINGH Vs.
\nSTATE OF PUNJAB reported in AIR 1964 SC 464; and (c) STATE OF MAHARASHTRA  Vs.
\nK.K.S.  RAMASWAMY reported in AIR 1977 SC 2091;\n<\/p>\n
viii.Since  the  charges in the said two criminal cases, viz., Spl.C.C.No.7 of
\n1997 and C.C.No.2 of 2001 are relating to two distinct offences, based on  two
\ndifferent sets of facts, viz., one related to accumulation of disproportionate
\nwealth  in  India  and  the other relating to accumulation of disproportionate
\nwealth outside India, the same were  not  committed  in  the  course  of  same
\ntransaction,  and  therefore,  neither  Section 218 nor Section 223 of Code of
\nCriminal Procedure is attracted in the instant case;\n<\/p>\n
ix.The procedure contemplated under Section 166A of Code of Criminal Procedure
\ndoes not prohibit the filing of  a  separate  charge  sheet  if  the  evidence
\ngathered  and  materials  collected  during  further investigation discloses a
\ndistinct offence;\n<\/p>\n
x.The procedure prescribed under Section 166-A Code of Criminal  Procedure  is
\nonly  a  rule of evidence for proving the offence and any alleged violation of
\nsuch rule of evidence cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings at the stage
\nof issuing the summons;\n<\/p>\n
xi.Since the F.I.R.No.2-AC-2000, dated 2.9.2000 as well as  the  charge  sheet
\ndated 23.3.2001, prima facie satisfy the ingredients of the offence punishable
\nunder  Section  13(1)(e)  of  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  Act,  it is not
\npermissible to quash the process of issuing the impugned summons,  unless  the
\ncontrary  is proved in the trial; as the defect or illegality in investigation
\nhas no  direct  bearing  on  the  competence  or  the  procedure  relating  to
\ncognisance or  trial;  nor vitiate the same, as held in H.M.RISHBUD Vs.  STATE
\nOF DELHI reported in AIR 19 55 SC 196 and IN RE, M.DAVEED reported in AIR 1959
\nAP 137; and
\nxii.In any event, from the fact that the Government had accorded  sanction  to
\nprosecute the  petitioner  in  Crl.O.P.No.21969  of 2001 in C.C.  No.2 of 2001
\nbefore the learned Principal  Sessions  Judge,  Chennai,  vide  G.O.Ms.No.330,
\nPublic  (SC)  Department,  dated 22.3.2001, it is presumed that the Government
\nwas aware of the terms of the Letters Rogatory issued by the Designated  Court
\nin  Spl.C.C.No.7 of 1997 and the undertakings given thereunder, and therefore,
\nthere is no illegality in the process of impugned summoning.\n<\/p>\n
9.  I have bestowed my careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of
\nthe case as well as the contentions made thereon.\n<\/p>\n
10.  The undisputed facts of the case are that:\n<\/p>\n
(i)the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.21969 of 2001, who was the Chief  Minister  of
\nTamil  Nadu  from  1.7.1991  to  30.4.1996,  and  the  respondents  2  to 4 in
\nCrl.O.P.No.21969 of 2001, are charged for the offence punishable under Section
\n13(1)(e) of  Prevention  of  Corruption  Act  as  well  as  for  the  criminal
\nconspiracy  to  commit the said offence in Spl.C.C.No.7 of 1997 on the file of
\nthe Designated Court, alleging  that  they  are  in  possession  of  pecuniary
\nresources  and  properties  in  India, disproportionate to the known source of
\nincome of the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.21969 of 2001;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)the respondent prosecution were permitted for further investigation  under
\nSection  173(8)  of  the  Code of Criminal Procedure and also obtained Letters
\nRogatory dated 13.4.1998, 25.9.1998, 6.3.2000 and 30.8 .2000 and supplementary
\nLetters Rogatory on 20.9.2000, 21.11.2000 and 12.12.2000 under Section 166A of
\nCode of Criminal Procedure from the Designated Court in Spl.C.C.No.7 of  1997,
\nto  gather evidence and collect materials relating to the alleged accumulation
\nof disproportionate wealth;\n<\/p>\n
(iii)the Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs,  by  their  letter
\ndated  10.8.1998,  referring  to the information of the United Kingdom Central
\nAuthority as well as the request of the High Commission of  India  at  London,
\nwanted  in writing an assurance from the concerned authority that the material
\nfurnished by United Kingdom authorities to the Government of  India  would  be
\nused  for  the  purpose specifically intended, and accordingly all the Letters
\nRogatory dated 13.4.1998, 25.9.1998, 6.3.2000 and 30.8.2000 contained specific
\nundertakings as required by the United Kingdom Central Authority.\n<\/p>\n
(iv)The undertakings given in Letters  Rogatory  dated  13.4.1998,  25.9.1998,
\n6.3.2000 and 30.8.2000, read as follows:\n<\/p>\n
a.in Letters Rogatory dated 13.4.1998 it was undertaken that:\n<\/p>\n
the  result  of  the  investigation  so  conducted in United Kingdom shall be
\nspecifically used only in the proceedings arising out of this criminal case in
\nwhich this Letter of Rogatory is being issued and shall  not  be  utilised  to
\nprosecute  any  offence  of  political  nature  or offences under the Military
\nlaws.\n<\/p>\n
b.in Letters Rogatory dated 25.9.1998, the following undertaking was given<\/p>\n
(i)None of the evidence which might be sent by the United Kingdom  Authorities
\nto  me  in  this  matter  will  ever  be  used  without  their consent, by the
\nauthorities in India for any purpose other than that stated in the  letter  of
\nrequest; and\n<\/p>\n
(ii)Any statement which might be made by a person in response to a requirement
\nimposed  by virtue of use of the investigation powers of the Director, Serious
\nFraud Office of the U.K.  Home Office will not be used without the consent  of
\nthe  United  Kingdom Home Office by any Authority in India in evidence against
\nthat person.\n<\/p>\n
c.In Letters Rogatory dated 6.3.2000, it was undertaken that :\n<\/p>\n
(i)None of the evidence which might be sent by the United Kingdom  Authorities
\nto  me  in  this  matter  will  ever  be  used  without  their consent, by any
\nauthorities in India for any purpose other than the one stated in  the  Letter
\nof Request; and\n<\/p>\n
(ii)Any statement which might be made by a person in response to a requirement
\nimposed  by virtue of use of the investigation powers of the Director, Serious
\nFraud Office of the U.K.  Home Office will not be used without the consent  of
\nthe  United  Kingdom Home Office by any Authority in India in evidence against
\nthat person.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)The result of the investigation so conducted in United Kingdom  shall  be
\nspecifically used only in the proceedings arising out of this criminal case in
\nwhich  this  Letter  Rogatory  is  being  issued  and shall not be utilised to
\nprosecute any offence of political nature or offences under the Military Laws.\n<\/p>\n
d.In Letters Rogatory dated 30.8.2000, it was undertaken as follows:\n<\/p>\n
(i)None of the evidence which might be sent by the United Kingdom  Authorities
\nto  me  in  this  matter  will  ever  be  used  without  their consent, by any
\nauthorities in India for any purpose other than the one stated in  the  Letter
\nof Request;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)Any statement which might be made by a person in response to a requirement
\nimposed  by virtue of use of the investigation powers of the Director, Serious
\nFraud Office of the U.K.  Home Office will not be used without the consent  of
\nthe  United  Kingdom Home Office by any Authority in India in evidence against
\nthat person; and\n<\/p>\n
(iii)The result of the investigation so conducted in United Kingdom  shall  be
\nspecifically used only in the proceedings arising out of this criminal case in
\nwhich  this  Letter  Rogatory  is  being  issued  and shall not be utilised to
\nprosecute any offence of political nature or offences under the Military Laws.
\n(Emphasis supplied) <\/p>\n
(iv)Accordingly, the respondent  prosecution  gathered  further  evidence  and
\ncollected materials to the effect that the petitioners herein are said to have
\naccumulated wealth outside India, viz.  Sri Lanka, Dubai, Malaysia, Singapore,
\nHong   Kong,  British  Virgin  Islands  and  the  United  Kingdom,  which  are
\ndisproportionate  to  known  source   of   income   of   the   petitioner   in
\nCrl.O.P.No.21969 of 2001, during her tenure as Chief Minister from 1.7.1991 to
\n30.4.1996.\n<\/p>\n
(v)Based  on  the  evidence  gathered  and  materials collected during further
\ninvestigation permitted by the Designated Court under Section 173 (8) Code  of
\nCriminal  Procedure,  pursuant to the Letters Rogatory in Spl.C.C.No.7 of 1997
\non the file of the Designated Court, the respondent prosecution filed separate
\nF.I.R.No.2-AC-2000, dated 2.9.2000, which culminated into a charge sheet dated
\n23.3.2001 in C.C.No.2 of 2001 before the  learned  Principal  Sessions  Judge,
\nChennai; and\n<\/p>\n
(vi)thus,  the  petitioner  in  Crl.O.P.No.21969  of  2001,  who was the Chief
\nMinister of Tamil Nadu from 1.7.1991  to  30.4.1996,  and  the  petitioner  in
\nCrl.O.P.No.22506 of 2001, are charged for the offence punishable under Section
\n13(1)(e)  of  Prevention  of  Corruption  Act  as  well  as  for  the criminal
\nconspiracy to commit the said offence in C.C.No.2 of 2001 on the file  of  the
\nlearned  Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, separately, alleging that they are
\nin  possession  of  pecuniary  resources   and   properties   outside   India,
\ndisproportionate   to  the  known  source  of  income  of  the  petitioner  in
\nCrl.O.P.No.21969 of 2001.\n<\/p>\n
11.  The issues that arise for my consideration in these petitions, under  the
\nfacts  and  circumstances  of the case and the rival contentions made thereon,
\nare:\n<\/p>\n
(i)Whether the impugned summons issued in C.C.No.2 of 2001 on the file of  the
\nlearned  Principal  Sessions  Judge,  Chennai,  can  be quashed by this Court,
\nexercising the powers conferred under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure?\n<\/p>\n
(ii)Whether the set of facts alleged in the F.I.R.No.2-AC-2000  registered  on
\n2.9.2000 and charge sheet dated 23.3.2001 filed in C.C.No.2 of 2001 before the
\nlearned  Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, based on the evidence gathered and
\nmaterials collected during further investigation in Spl.C.C.No.7  of  1997  on
\nthe  file  of  the  Designated  Court, arise in the course of same transaction
\nalleged in the Crime No.13\/AC\/96 registered on 18.9.96 and charge sheet  filed
\nin Spl.C.C.No.7 of 19 97 on the file of the Designated Court?\n<\/p>\n
(iii)Whether  any  violation to the undertakings given in the Letters Rogatory
\nissued  under  Section  166-A  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  during   further
\ninvestigation   under   Section  173(8)  of  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  in
\nSpl.C.C.No.7 of 1997  on  the  file  of  the  Designated  Court,  vitiate  the
\nregistration of a separate First Information Report dated 2.9 .2000 and filing
\nof  the  charge  sheet dated 23.3.2001 in C.C.No.2 of 2 001 before the learned
\nPrincipal Sessions Judge, Chennai?\n<\/p>\n
(iv)What directions \/ orders are required, under the facts  and  circumstances
\nof the case, to meet the ends of justice?\n<\/p>\n
12.1.  Issue:  1 – Whether the impugned summons issued in C.C.No.2 of 2 001 on
\nthe  file  of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, can be quashed by
\nthis Court, exercising the powers conferred under Section 482 Code of Criminal
\nProcedure?\n<\/p>\n
12.2.  Even though the burden of proving the guilt of an accused  in  criminal
\nproceedings  lies on the prosecution, there is a deliberate departure from the
\nsaid ordinary principles of criminal jurisprudence  in  the  case  of  offence
\npunishable  under  the Prevention of Corruption Act, wherein the burden on the
\nprosecution to prove the guilt of the accused must be held to  be  discharged,
\nif  certain facts as mentioned therein are proved, and then, the burden shifts
\nto the  accused,  who  has  to  prove  that  in  spite  of  the  assets  being
\ndisproportionate  to his\/ her known sources of income, he\/she is not guilty of
\nthe offence, as the legislature requires the public servant to  satisfactorily
\naccount  the  pecuniary  resources  and property that are alleged to have been
\naccumulated  by  the   public   servant   or   others   on   his\/her   behalf,
\ndisproportionate  to  his\/her known sources of income, as held in SAJJAN SINGH
\nVs.  STATE OF PUNJAB reported in AIR 1964 SC 464.\n<\/p>\n
12.3.  As held in STATE OF  MAHARASHTRA  Vs.    WASUDEO  RAMCHANDRA  KAIDALWAR
\nreported in  1981  SCC (Cri) 690, STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs.  POLLONJU DARABSHAW
\nreported in AIR 1988 SC 88 and STATE OF HARYANA Vs.  BHAJAN  LAL  reported  in
\n1992  SCC  (Cri)  426,  while  the prosecution must prove the following facts,
\nviz.:  (i) that the accused is a public servant, (ii) the nature and extent of
\nthe pecuniary resources or property which were found  in  his\/her  possession,\n<\/p>\n
(iii) what  were  his\/her  known  sources  of  income,  i.e.    known  to  the
\nprosecution; and (iv) that such resources or property found in  possession  of
\nthe  accused  were  disproportionate  to  his\/her known sources of income, the
\nburden is then shifted to the accused to satisfactorily  explain  and  account
\nfor his\/her possession of the disproportionate wealth.\n<\/p>\n
12.4.   It  is  also well settled in law that the legislature has deliberately
\ncast a burden on the accused who is facing charges for the offence  punishable
\nunder  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  Act,  not  only  to  offer a plausible
\nexplanation as to how the public servant came by such disproportionate  wealth
\nas  alleged, but also to satisfy the Court that the explanation offered by the
\npublic servant is worthy of acceptance, vide C.D.S.   SWAMY  Vs.    THE  STATE
\nreported in AIR 1960 SC 7.\n<\/p>\n
12.5.  As rightly pointed out by Mr.R.Shanmugasundaram, learned senior counsel
\narguing  as  Amicus  Curiae,  it  is  suffice for the prosecution to refer the
\napparent income of the public servant as his\/her known source of income  while
\nregistering  the  First Information Report and framing the charge sheet, as it
\nis always open to the accused\/public servant to prove those source  of  income
\nwhich  should have been taken into account or brought into the evidence by the
\nprosecution and the same is permissible only during  the  trial,  as  held  in
\nSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA  Vs.   K.K.S.  RAMASWAMY reported in AIR 1977 SC 2091 and
\nC.D.S.  SWAMY Vs.  THE STATE (referred supra).\n<\/p>\n
12.6.  In the instant case, as the evidence are yet to be adduced, allegations
\nare to be proved  and  explanations  are  to  be  satisfactorily  established,
\nappreciation  of  the same, much less the satisfactory account for the alleged
\ndisproportionate wealth is impermissible in law at  a  pre-trial  stage  in  a
\nquash  proceeding  under  Section  482  of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and
\ntherefore, applying the said ratio laid  down  in  STATE  OF  MAHARASHTRA  Vs.
\nK.K.S.  RAMASWAMY (referred supra), that the accused\/public servant are always
\nat  liberty  to  prove  the  contrary  to the charges during the trial and get
\nthemselves discharged from the charges, I am of the considered opinion that it
\nis not permissible to quash the impugned summons, at this pre-trial stage,  as
\nquashing  of  the  process  of  summoning  the  accused  to answer the charges
\nrelating to the corruption in public offices,  would  render  the  very  trial
\npre-emptive.\n<\/p>\n
12.7.  Issue:1 is answered in negative.\n<\/p>\n
13.1.  Issue:    2 – Whether the set of facts alleged in the F.I.R.No.2AC-2000
\nregistered on 2.9.2000 and charge sheet dated 23.3.2001 filed in  C.C.No.2  of
\n2001  before  the  learned  Principal  Sessions  Judge,  Chennai, based on the
\nevidence gathered and materials  collected  during  further  investigation  in
\nSpl.C.C.No.7  of 1997 on the file of the Designated Court, arise in the course
\nof same transaction alleged in the Crime No.13\/AC\/96 registered on 18.9.96 and
\ncharge sheet filed in Spl.  C.C.No.7 of 1997 on the  file  of  the  Designated
\nCourt?\n<\/p>\n
13.2.  Elaborate arguments are made on this issue.\n<\/p>\n
13.3.  While  Mr.K.Asokan  and Mr.B.  Kumar, learned senior counsel, appearing
\nfor  the  petitioners  herein  contend  that  the  alleged   accumulation   of
\ndisproportionate  wealth by the petitioners constituting an offence punishable
\nunder Section 13(1)(e) of  Prevention  of  Corruption  Act  and  the  criminal
\nconspiracy  to  commit  the said offence, had taken place during the course of
\nsame transaction with reference  to  the  same  check  period  for  which  the
\npetitioner  and respondents 2 to 4 in Crl.O.P.No.21969 of 2001 were charged in
\nSpl.C.C.No.7   of   1997   on   the   file   of    the    Designated    Court,
\nMr.R.Shanmugasundaram,  learned  senior  counsel  contends  otherwise,  as the
\nproperties said to have accumulated by the accused in C.C.No.2 of 2001 on  the
\nfile  of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, are identified outside
\nIndia, while, such accumulation of properties by the accused  in  Spl.C.C.No.7
\nof  1997  on  the  file  of  the  Designated Court are identified in India and
\ntherefore, both the offences in the respective case are distinct  as  held  in
\nRAM LAL  NARANG  Vs.  STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) reported in 1979 SCC ( Cri)\n<\/p>\n
479.<\/p>\n
13.4.  Once the offences are distinct, Mr.R.Shanmugasundaram, contends that  a
\nsecond  or  successive  F.I.R.No.2-AC-2000, dated 2.9.2000 could be registered
\nand a separate charge sheet dated 23.3.2001  could  be  filed  in  a  separate
\ncriminal case,  as  held  in  RAM LAL NARANG Vs.  STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)
\nreported in 1979 SCC (Cri) 479, and M.    KRISHNA  Vs.    STATE  OF  KARNATAKA
\nreported in 1999 SCC (Cri) 397.\n<\/p>\n
13.5.   Instead of pondering over the rival contentions made on either side as
\nto whether the set of facts alleged in the Crime No.13\/AC\/96,  Head  Quarters,
\nregistered on  18.9.96 and charge sheet filed in Spl.  C.C.No.7 of 1997 on the
\nfile of the Designated Court, that the petitioner and respondents 2  to  4  in
\nCrl.O.P.No.21969 of 2001 pursuant to a criminal conspiracy possessed pecuniary
\nresources  and properties in India, disproportionate to known source of income
\nof the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.21969 of 2001 and those alleged in  the  First
\nInformation  Report  dated  2.9.2000 and charge sheet dated 23.3.2001 filed in
\nC.C.No.2 of 2001 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai,
\nalleging that the petitioners herein have accumulated disproportionate  wealth
\noutside  India,  constitute  the  same  or  distinct  offence punishable under
\nSection 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption  Act,  I  am  of  the  considered
\nopinion that it would be unsafe for this Court to come to a conclusion whether
\nthe two cases viz.  Spl.C.C.  No.7 of 1997 on the file of the Designated Court
\nand  C.C.No.2  of  2001  on  the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
\nChennai, relate to a same transaction or otherwise;  because,  it  will  be  a
\nserious  error in putting an end to the prosecution at its inception, by going
\ninto the merits in a pre-trial on consideration of the averments made  in  the
\npetition  alone, unless they are proved to be true and reliable in the regular
\ntrial, as held in STATE OF BIHAR Vs.  P.P.  SHARMA reported in 1992 SCC (Cri.)\n<\/p>\n
192.  It may not be, therefore, possible for this Court, while exercising  the
\npowers  conferred  under  Section  482  of Code of Criminal Procedure, to hold
\nwhether or not the offence alleged  against  the  petitioners  herein  in  the
\ncharge  sheet  dated  23.3.200  1 filed in C.C.No.2 of 2001 before the learned
\nPrincipal Sessions Judge, Chennai, have been  committed  by  them  during  the
\ncourse of same transaction, for which the petitioner and respondents 2 to 4 in
\nCrl.O.  P.No.21969 of 2001, are charged in Spl.C.C.No.7 of 1997 on the file of
\nthe Designated Court.  The accumulation of pecuniary resources and properties,
\ndisproportionate   to  the  known  source  of  income  of  the  petitioner  in
\nCrl.O.P.No.21969 of 2001, during the same check period, which  is  a  relevant
\ncriteria in both  the  criminal cases, viz.  Spl.C.C.  No.7 of 1997 before the
\nDesignated Court and C.C.No.2 of 2001 on the file  of  the  learned  Principal
\nSessions  Judge, Chennai, and whether the same are satisfactorily accounted or
\nnot, equally cannot be gone into in quash proceedings  under  Section  482  of
\nCode  of  Criminal  Procedure, as, they are to be gone through only during the
\ncourse of trial.\n<\/p>\n
13.6.  As it is already held in Issue No.1 that it is improper for this  Court
\nto  quash  the  process of impugned summons in C.C.No.2 of 2001 on the file of
\nthe learned Principal Sessions Judge,  Chennai,  by  exercising  the  inherent
\njurisdiction  conferred under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, it is
\nequally impermissible in  law  to  appreciate  the  averments  stated  in  the
\npetition  and  the  related  documents  therein, treating them as evidence and
\ndelve  into  the  disputed  questions  of  fact,  by  exercising  such  power,
\nconverting this  Court  into  a  Court of trial.  Therefore, at this pre-trial
\nstage, it would not be well within the judicial  discipline  to  go  into  the
\ncontroversy  whether  or  not  both set of facts relating to the allegation in
\nSpl.C.C.No.7 of 1997 on the file of the Designated Court and C.C.No.2 of  2001
\non  the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, arise under the
\ncourse of same transaction, and  any  such  attempt  to  the  contrary,  under
\nSection  482  of  Code  of  Criminal Procedure, would annihilate the stillborn
\nprosecution.\n<\/p>\n
13.7.  Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
14.1.  Issue:  3 – Whether any violation to  the  undertakings  given  in  the
\nLetters  Rogatory issued under Section 166-A Code of Criminal Procedure during
\nfurther investigation under Section 173(8) of Code of  Criminal  Procedure  in
\nSpl.C.C.No.7  of  1997  on  the  file  of  the  Designated  Court, vitiate the
\nregistration of a separate First Information Report dated 2.9.2000 and  filing
\nof  the  charge  sheet  dated  23.3.2001  and the consequential proceedings in
\nC.C.No.2 of 2001 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai?\n<\/p>\n
14.2.  The Code of Criminal  Procedure  prescribes  the  following  steps  for
\ninvestigation:\n<\/p>\n
(i)Proceeding to the spot;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)Ascertainment of the facts and circumstances of the case;\n<\/p>\n
(iii)Discovery and arrest of the suspected offender;\n<\/p>\n
(iv)Collection  of  evidence  relating  to the commission of offence which may
\nconsist of :\n<\/p>\n
a.the examination of various persons (including the accused) and reduction  of
\ntheir statements into writing, if the officer thinks fit,
\nb.the  search  of the places or seizure of things considered necessary for the
\ninvestigation and to produce at the trial; and\n<\/p>\n
(v)     Formation of the opinion as to whether on the material collected there
\nis a case to place the accused before a Magistrate for trial and if so, taking
\nthe necessary steps for the same by the filing of a charge sheet under Section
\n173 of Code of Criminal Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
14.3.  Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure empowers  the  prosecution
\nto  further  investigate into the matter in respect of any offence, even after
\nfiling a report under Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure and to file
\na further report or reports regarding such evidence; and in  which  event  the
\nprocedure provided  under Section 173(2) to (6) shall apply again.  Of course,
\nit is also well settled in law that a defect or illegality said to  have  been
\ncommitted  during  the course of investigation, does not affect the competency
\nor the procedure relating to cognisance of trial, vide  PRABHU  Vs.    EMPEROR
\nreported in AIR 1944 PC 73, LUMBHARDAR ZUTSHI Vs.  THE KING reported in AIR 19
\n50 PC  26  and  H.M.RISHBUD  Vs.  STATE OF DELHI reported in AIR 1955 SC 1 96.
\nBut, the petitioners herein do not complain any illegality during  the  course
\nof investigation.    However,  they are aggrieved by the breach of undertaking
\ngiven in the Letters Rogatory issued under Section 166A of  Code  of  Criminal
\nProcedure,  during  further investigation made under Section 173(8) of Code of
\nCriminal Procedure in Spl.C.C.  No.7 of 1997 on the  file  of  the  Designated
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
14.4.   Section  166A  of  the  Code of Criminal Procedure empowers a Court in
\nIndia to issue letter of request (Letters Rogatory) to competent authority for
\ninvestigation in a country or place outside India, which,  already  extracted,
\nreads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
Section 166A   Cr.P.C.:    Letter  of  request  to  competent  authority  for
\ninvestigation in a country or place outside India:  –\n<\/p>\n
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code, if, in the course  of  an
\ninvestigation  into  an  offence,  an application is made by the investigating
\nofficer or any officer superior in rank  to  the  investigating  officer  that
\nevidence  may  be  available in a country or place outside India, any Criminal
\nCourt may issue a letter of request to a Court or an authority in that country
\nor place competent to deal with such request  to  examine  orally  any  person
\nsupposed  to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case and to
\nrecord his statement made in the  course  of  such  examination  and  also  to
\nrequire such person or any other person to produce any document or thing which
\nmay  be  in  his  possession  pertaining  to  the  case and to forward all the
\nevidence so taken or collected or the  authenticated  copies  thereof  or  the
\nthing so collected to the Court issuing such letter.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  The  letter  of  request  shall  be transmitted in such manner as Central
\nGovernment may specify in this behalf.\n<\/p>\n
(3) Every statement recorded or document or thing received  under  sub-section
\n(1)  shall  be  deemed  to  be  the  evidence  collected  during the course of
\ninvestigation under this Chapter.\n<\/p>\n
(Emphasis supplied) <\/p>\n
14.5.  A Letter Rogatory is a formal request from a court in  one  country  to
\n“the   appropriate   judicial   authorities”  in  another  country  requesting
\ncompulsion of testimony or documentary or other evidence or effect service  of
\nprocess.  Although statutory authority generally refers to the instrument as a
\n“letter  rogatory”,  the  terms “letter rogatory” and “letter of request” have
\ncome to be virtually synonymous in actual practice.  When  a  witness  is  not
\nwilling  to  testify  or  produce documents or other evidence voluntarily, the
\nassistance of foreign authorities generally must be  sought,  and  under  such
\ncircumstances,  the  customary  method  of  compelling  evidence  is by letter
\nRogatory, and therefore, letter  rogatory  is  the  only  method  to  obtain
\nevidence or  serve  process.    Such  execution  of  a  request  for  judicial
\nassistance by the foreign court is based on comity between nations.   Requests
\nfor evidence  of  foreign  country should be as specific as possible.  Letters
\nRogatory must be issued under the seal of the court and the signature  of  the
\nJudge.   In  other  words,  the  clerk should not sign on behalf of the Judge.
\nEvery terms of the Letter Rogatory should therefore be given due importance.\n<\/p>\n
14.6.  The  Letters  Rogatory  dated  13.4.1998,  25.9.1998,  6.3.2000  and  3
\n0.8.2000,  admittedly, carry undertaking that the results of the investigation
\nso conducted in  United  Kingdom  shall  be  specifically  used  only  in  the
\nproceedings  arising  out of this criminal case, viz., Spl.C.C.No.7 of 1997 on
\nthe file of the Designated Court, in which the  above  Letters  Rogatory  were
\nissued, and  therefore, such undertakings cannot be lightly disregarded.  Even
\nthough the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.21969 of 2001 has no right to be heard  at
\nthe  time of permitting further investigation or issuing Letters Rogatory, she
\nis entitled to bring any breach  of  the  undertaking  given  in  the  Letters
\nRogatory under Section 166A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, at the earliest
\npoint  of  time,  because  every terms of Letters Rogatory should be given due
\nimportance, as they were issued under the  seal  of  the  Court  issuing  such
\nLetters Rogatory.\n<\/p>\n
14.7.   Since, admittedly, the evidence and materials which form the basis for
\nregistering the F.I.R.No.2-AC-2000, dated  2.9.2000,  and  filing  the  charge
\nsheet dated 23.3.2001 in C.C.No.2 of 2001 on the file of the learned Principal
\nSessions  Judge,  Chennai,  were  gathered and collected pursuant to the leave
\ngranted by the Designated Court, for  further  investigation  by  exercise  of
\npowers  conferred  under  Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and
\nthe Letters Rogatory issued  under  Section  166A  of  the  Code  of  Criminal
\nProcedure  in Spl.C.C.No.7 of 1997 before the Designated Court, any vio lation
\nto such terms of Letters Rogatory is incomprehensible.\n<\/p>\n
14.8.  Section 166A of Code of Criminal Procedure expressly provides that  the
\nevidence  so  taken  or  gathered  pursuant  to  the  Letters  Rogatory issued
\nthereunder should be forwarded to the Court issuing such letter.  If  that  be
\nso,  the intention of the legislature expressly provided under Section 166A of
\nCode of Criminal Procedure cannot be supplemented by any other procedure.   It
\nis  also  well  settled in law that there can be no justification in adding or
\nignoring any word to make the provision of law more or less stringent than the
\nlegislature has  made  it.    Therefore,  any  violation  to  the  p  rocedure
\nprescribed  under  Section  166A  Code  of Criminal Procedure would render the
\nproceedings improper and unfair resulting in miscarriage of justice.\n<\/p>\n
14.9.  Conducting a fair trial is both for the benefit of the society as  well
\nas the accused and cannot be abandoned.  A conviction resulting from an unfair
\ntrial is  contrary  to  our concept of justice.  Even though the end result of
\nthe case is important, the means to achieve it also must remain  above  board.
\nThe legitimacy of the judicial process should not be compromised, at any cost,
\ncondoning  any violation to the due process of law, as held in STATE OF PUNJAB
\nVs.  BALDEV SINGH reported in (1999) 6 SCC 172.\n<\/p>\n
14.10.  While considering the aspect of fair trial,  the  nature  of  evidence
\nobtained  and  the nature of the safeguard violated are both relevant factors.
\nCourt cannot allow admission of evidence against an accused where the Court is
\nsatisfied that the evidence has been  obtained  by  a  conduct  of  which  the
\nprosecution  ought  not  to have taken advantage, particularly by committing a
\nbreach of undertaking given to the foreign authority in the  Letters  Rogatory
\nissued under  Section  166A  of Code of Criminal Procedure.  Therefore, use of
\nevidence collected in violation to the Letter Rogatory and  undertaking  given
\nby  the  prosecution  as well as the Central Government, under Section 166A of
\nCode of Criminal Procedure, would, in strict sense, render  the  trial  unfair
\nand evidence  inadmissible.    If  the  Court  is  seen  to  condone  acts  of
\nlawlessness conducted by the investigating agency, the legitimacy of  judicial
\nprocess  will  fall  under a cloud, undermine respect for the law and have the
\neffect of unconscionably comprising the administration of justice.\n<\/p>\n
14.11.  There is, indeed, a need to protect society from  criminals,  and  the
\nsocietal  intent  in  safety  will suffer if persons who commit crimes are let
\noff, because the evidence against them is to be treated  as  if  it  does  not
\nexist.   The  answer,  therefore, is that the investigating agency must follow
\nthe procedure as envisaged by the statute scrupulously and the failure  to  do
\nso must be viewed by the higher authorities seriously, inviting action against
\nthe  official  concerned,  so that the laxity on the part of the Investigating
\nauthority is curbed, as held by the Apex Court in STATE OF PUNJAB VS.   BALDEV
\nSINGH REPORTED IN 1999 (6) SCC 172.\n<\/p>\n
14.12.   It is true the concern is genuine and the problem is real and to deal
\nwith such a situation, a balanced approach is  needed  to  meet  the  ends  of
\njustice.   The  action  of  the  State, however, must be right, just and fair.
\nReasonableness, fairness and ju st procedure are prime objects of our criminal
\njurisprudence and therefore, the same would not be rendered  illusory,  otiose
\nand meaningless by any procedural lapse on the part of the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
14.13.  The procedure based on systematic and unconscionable violation of law,
\nmuch  less,  any  violation  of  any  undertaking  given in the course of such
\nprocedure, by the officials responsible for the enforcement of such procedural
\nlaw, cannot be considered to be a fair, just and  reasonable  procedure.    In
\nfine,  as  conducting  of  fair  trial for those who are accused of a criminal
\noffence is the corner stone of our democratic society, the  use  of  any  such
\nevidence  in  violation to the spirit and substance of Letters Rogatory issued
\nunder Section 166A of Code of Criminal Procedure and much less any undertaking
\ngiven thereunder by the respondent  prosecution,  in  my  considered  opinion,
\nwould  only  render the trial unfair, and therefore, the prosecution cannot be
\npermitted to take advantage of its wrong, in filing a report  dated  23.3.2001
\nin  C.C.No.2  of  2001  before  the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai,
\ninstead of filing the same before the  Designated  Court  in  Spl.C.C.No.7  of
\n1997, inasmuch as the respondent prosecution cannot claim any immunity even if
\nthey are wrong in committing such breach of their own undertaking.\n<\/p>\n
14.14.   On  an  general  conspectus  and  upon consideration of the facts and
\ncircumstances of the case referred to above, I am obliged  to  hold  that  the
\nviolation  committed by the respondent prosecution to the undertaking given in
\nthe Letters Rogatory dated  13.4.1998,  25.9.1998,  6  .3.2000  and  30.8.2000
\nissued  under  Section  166A  of  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure during further
\ninvestigation under Section  173(8)  of  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure,  would
\nvitiate  the  proceeding  in  C.C.No.2  of  2001  on  the  file of the learned
\nPrincipal Sessions Judge, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
        14.15.  Issue:3 is answered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
15.1.  Issue :  4 What directions \/ orders are required, under the  facts  and
\ncircumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice?\n<\/p>\n
15.2.    Interpreting   Section   173(8)   of   Code  of  Criminal  Procedure,
\nG.B.PATNAIK,J., as he then was, in ARJUNA KUMAR Vs.  STATE OF ORISSA  reported
\nin 1989  Crl.L.J.  449, held that Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure
\nshould be construed harmoniously without doing any violation to  the  language
\nof  Sections  173(1)  to  (7)  of  Code  of  Criminal Procedure, the paramount
\nconsideration of the same would be the interest of  justice,  without  causing
\nany prejudice to the accused.  Therefore, the ultimate discretion remains with
\nthe  Court, which is in seisin of the case to decide as to what further action
\ncan be taken depending upon the  nature  of  the  materials  received  on  the
\nfurther investigation.    Hence,  in  the  instant case, the subsequent report
\ndated 23.3.20 01 can be filed only before the Designated  Court,  even  though
\nthe  case  is already tried before the Designated Court, which in the event of
\nreceiving such further report, will consider the nature of evidence which  the
\nfurther report discloses and decide in accordance with law and in the interest
\nof justice.\n<\/p>\n
15.3.  Again S.RAJENDRA  BABU,J.  as he then was, in J.ALEXANDER Vs.  STATE OF
\nKARNATAKA reported in 1996 Crl.L.J.  592, interpreting Section 1 73(8) of Code
\nof Criminal Procedure held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
It opens with a non-obstante clause that nothing stated in the section  would
\npreclude  further  investigation  after a report under subsection (2) had been
\nforwarded to the Magistrate.  A report  submitted  to  the  Court  may  either
\nresult  in  taking  cognisance  as  a result of a report as contemplated under
\nSection 170 of the Code or discharge of bond on a report  made  under  Section
\n169 of  the  Code.    Where  upon  the  office in charge of the police station
\nobtains further evidence,  oral  or  documentary,  he  shall  forward  to  the
\nMagistrate  a  further  report  or reports regarding such evidence in the form
\nprescribed under the provisions.  The applicability of sub-sections (2) to (6)
\nof Section 173 of the Code would make it clear that  each  of  the  subsequent
\nreports made further would also become report for the purpose of Section 173(2
\n), Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
.\n<\/p>\n
Thus  the  object  of  Section  173(8) is clear and it is not confined only to
\ncases where cognisance is taken.\n<\/p>\n
.\n<\/p>\n
When a report is made under Section 169 read with Section 173 of the Code what
\nis necessary for the Court is to find out whether the material is insufficient
\nto send up the accused person for trial.\n<\/p>\n
.\n<\/p>\n
However, it would not only mean that the acceptance is  a  matter  of  course.
\nWhat  the Court does then is consider the materials collected in the course of
\ninvestigation either accepting the report or adopt any of  the  other  courses
\nindicated in  Kamalapati  Trivedi  Vs.   The State of West Bengal, AIR 1979 SC\n<\/p>\n
777.
\n.\n<\/p>\n
Even if  further  fresh  materials  is  discovered  which  calls  for  further
\ninvestigation  and if such investigation is not allowed then such course would
\nbe stultification of law and logic resulting in miscarriage of justice.  In  a
\ncountry where there is cancerous growth of corruption with close links between
\nthe  bureaucracy  and  politicians  and  such  acts  being done under shrouded
\nmystery it is difficult to assume that all facts  could  be  revealed  in  one
\nstroke.   In such cases great effort is needed to discover material, and after
\nsecuring further material, the Police seek  to  investigate  the  matter,  the
\nprovisions of law cannot be interpreted to stifle such course of action.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore,  the  acceptance  of  the  further  report should be read in such a
\nmanner that it advantageous the cause of justice and the public interest.\n<\/p>\n
15.4.  In SURENDRA NATH SINGH Vs.  STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH reported  in  2  001
\nCriminal.L.J.1745,  Allahabad  High  Court has held that a further report made
\nunder section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot  be  treated  as  a
\nfresh  investigation  or a fresh report since two proceedings at two different
\nCourts between the same party is not permissible in law and they  have  to  be
\ntried at  one  place.  It shall be open for the Court to look into the further
\nreport and if anything new is there, it can frame charges in  accordance  with
\nit treating  it  as  a  supplementary  report.    If some new accused are also
\nintroduced in the further report, the Court can take cognisance  against  them
\nas well and it shall be called supplementary charge sheet and will be received
\nand proceeded in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
15.5.   That  apart,  the  source  of  income  of  a public servant during the
\nparticular check period,  as  well  as  the  alleged  pecuniary  resources  or
\nproperties  disproportionate  to  his\/her  known source of income for the same
\nperiod could not be assessed by two different courts, which would,  otherwise,
\ngive way for different val uation by different Courts, and the same be opposed
\nto  criminal  jurisprudence, as, the piecemeal or instalment prosecution would
\nonly amount to abuse of process of law, giving way for inconsistent  valuation
\nin  two  different trials by two different Courts, resulting in miscarriage of
\njustice, as held in CONNELLY Vs.  DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS reported  in
\n(1964) 2 ALL ENGLAND REPORTER 401.\n<\/p>\n
15.6.   When a breach of undertaking of the respondent prosecution given under
\nthe Letters Rogatory issued under Section 166A of Code of  Criminal  Procedure
\nduring  further  investigation  under  Section  173(8)  of  Code  of  Criminal
\nProcedure in Spl.C.C.No.7 of 1997 before the Designated Court  is  brought  to
\nthe notice of this Court at an early stage of trial in C.C.No.2 of 2001 on the
\nfile of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, invoking Section 482 of
\nthe  Code  of Criminal Procedure, this Court being a superior Court, satisfied
\nthat the investigating agency are empowered to make further investigation  and
\nsubmit  a  supplement  report in the interest of both prosecution and defence,
\nany breach of undertaking  given  under  the  Letters  Rogatory  issued  under
\nSection  166-A  of  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure would bring a miscarriage of
\njustice, is bound  to  consider  such  improper  exercise  of  powers  by  the
\nrespondent prosecution and therefore, obliged to direct the Principal Sessions
\nJudge,   Chennai,   to   transfer   the   entire   records   relating  to  the
\nF.I.R.No.2-AC-2000, dated 2.9.2000, and the evidence  gathered  and  materials
\ncollected  pursuant  to the further investigation under Section 173(8) of Code
\nof Criminal Procedure, and charge sheet dated 23.3.2001 filed in  C.C.No.2  of
\n2001 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, to the file
\nof  the  Designated  Court,  where  Spl.C.C.No.7  of  1997 is pending viz., XI
\nAdditional Sessions and Special Judge, Chennai,  who  shall  take  appropriate
\ndecision  on  the further course of action under the provisions of the Code of
\nCriminal Procedure and proceed in accordance with law, as to<\/p>\n
(i) whether to issue process of summons to persons, as to the  fresh  evidence
\nand  materials  discovered, to deal with them in accordance with law, treating
\nthe charge sheet dated 23.3.2001 as a further report in Spl.C.C.No.7  of  1997
\non  the  file  of  the  Designated  Court,  after impleading the petitioner in
\nCrl.O.P.No.22506 of 2001, who is a newly involved accused,  and  taking  fresh
\ncognisance of the offence disclosed against the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.21969
\nof  2001  and  the  petitioner  in Crl.O.P.No.22506 of 2001, and to proceed in
\naccordance with law ; or<\/p>\n
(ii)  if  the  case  in  which  the  Designated  Court  had  previously  taken
\ncognisance, viz.    Spl.C.C.No.7  of  1997, has already been proceeded with to
\nsome extent, the Designated Court may take fresh  cognisance  of  the  offence
\ndisclosed  against  the  petitioners  herein  and  proceed with the case, as a
\nseparate one, based on the evidence gathered and  materials  collected,  which
\nculminated  into  charge sheet dated 23.3.2001 in C.C.No.2 of 2001 on the file
\nof the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai,  and  transferred  hereunder
\nand proceed with the case in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
15.7.  In the interest of independence of the magistracy and the judiciary, in
\nthe  interest  of  purity of the administration of criminal justice and in the
\ninterest of the comity of various agencies  and  institutions  entrusted  with
\ndifferent  stages  of such administration, in deference to the observations of
\nthe Apex Court made in RAM  LAL  NARANG  Vs.    STATE  (DELHI  ADMINISTRATION)
\nreported  in  1979  SCC  (Cri) 479, and the ratio laid down in J.ALEXANDER Vs.
\nSTATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 1996 Crl.L.J.  592 and ARJUNA KUMAR Vs.   STATE
\nOF ORISSA  reported  in  1  989  Crl.L.J.    449,  whatever  the decision, the
\nDesignated Court is to take, the same shall be in accordance with the Code  of
\nCriminal Procedure and in consequence of the above direction.\n<\/p>\n
15.8.   In  any event, the Designated Court shall take appropriate decision in
\nthe matter expeditiously, try the same on day-to-day basis  and  conclude  the
\nsame  within  a  period of six months from today, as held by the Apex Court in
\nSATYA NARAYAN SHARMA Vs.  STATE OF RAJASTHAN reported in 2001 (8) SCC 607 = JT
\n2001 (8) SC 157.  If the petitioners or prosecution have any  bonafide  reason
\nto  comply with the above directions, they are at liberty to bring the same to
\nthe Designated Court, which shall be considered by  the  Designated  Court  on
\nmerits,  in  the  light  of  the observations made in SATYA NARAYAN SHARMA Vs.
\nSTATE OF RAJASTHAN (referred supra).\n<\/p>\n
        15.9.  Issue:4 is answered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
        16.  I  am  greatly  obliged  to  record  my  appreciations  to  Mr.R.
\nShanmugasundaram,  learned  Senior  Counsel  and former Public Prosecutor, and
\nMr.N.R.Elango, former Government Advocate (Criminal Side), for their  valuable
\nassistance rendered as Amicus Curiae, in the above petitions.\n<\/p>\n
        In  the  result, these petitions are dismissed with directions ordered
\nabove.  Consequently, Crl.M.P.Nos.7560 of 2001  and  7686  of  2001  are  also
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
10.01.2002 <\/p>\n
Note to Registry:\n<\/p>\n
1.  Registry is directed to issue copy of this order by 11.01.2002, and\n<\/p>\n
2.  To furnish a certified copy of the order dated 10.1.2001 at the cost
\nof the Registry to Mr.R.Shanmugasundaram, learned Senior Counsel
\nand Mr.N.R.Elango, who appeared as Amicus Curiae.\n<\/p>\n
Index:  Yes
\nkpl\/sasi<\/p>\n
P.D.DINAKARAN,J.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.O.P.Nos.21969 and 22506 of 2001  <\/p>\n
10.01.2002 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court J.Jayalalithaa vs State Represented By on 10 January, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10\/01\/2002 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN Crl.O.P.Nos. 21969 of 2001 and crl.o.p. no. 22506 of 2001 Crl.O.P.No.21969 of 2001 J.Jayalalithaa .. Petitioner Vs 1. State Represented by Superintendent of Police Special Investigation Cell […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-105700","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJ.Jayalalithaa vs State Represented By on 10 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-jayalalithaa-vs-state-represented-by-on-10-january-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"J.Jayalalithaa vs State Represented By on 10 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-jayalalithaa-vs-state-represented-by-on-10-january-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-01-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-11T12:01:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"60 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-jayalalithaa-vs-state-represented-by-on-10-january-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-jayalalithaa-vs-state-represented-by-on-10-january-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"J.Jayalalithaa vs State Represented By on 10 January, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-01-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-11T12:01:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-jayalalithaa-vs-state-represented-by-on-10-january-2002\"},\"wordCount\":11774,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-jayalalithaa-vs-state-represented-by-on-10-january-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-jayalalithaa-vs-state-represented-by-on-10-january-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-jayalalithaa-vs-state-represented-by-on-10-january-2002\",\"name\":\"J.Jayalalithaa vs State Represented By on 10 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-01-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-11T12:01:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-jayalalithaa-vs-state-represented-by-on-10-january-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-jayalalithaa-vs-state-represented-by-on-10-january-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-jayalalithaa-vs-state-represented-by-on-10-january-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"J.Jayalalithaa vs State Represented By on 10 January, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"J.Jayalalithaa vs State Represented By on 10 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-jayalalithaa-vs-state-represented-by-on-10-january-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"J.Jayalalithaa vs State Represented By on 10 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-jayalalithaa-vs-state-represented-by-on-10-january-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-01-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-11T12:01:48+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"60 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-jayalalithaa-vs-state-represented-by-on-10-january-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-jayalalithaa-vs-state-represented-by-on-10-january-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"J.Jayalalithaa vs State Represented By on 10 January, 2002","datePublished":"2002-01-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-11T12:01:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-jayalalithaa-vs-state-represented-by-on-10-january-2002"},"wordCount":11774,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-jayalalithaa-vs-state-represented-by-on-10-january-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-jayalalithaa-vs-state-represented-by-on-10-january-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-jayalalithaa-vs-state-represented-by-on-10-january-2002","name":"J.Jayalalithaa vs State Represented By on 10 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-01-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-11T12:01:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-jayalalithaa-vs-state-represented-by-on-10-january-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-jayalalithaa-vs-state-represented-by-on-10-january-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-jayalalithaa-vs-state-represented-by-on-10-january-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"J.Jayalalithaa vs State Represented By on 10 January, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105700","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=105700"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105700\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=105700"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=105700"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=105700"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}