Express News Service
NEW DELHI: In a setback to Tamil Nadu Electricity Minister Senthil Balaji, the Supreme Court on Thursday restored a criminal complaint filed against the minister and three others, including his brother, for allegedly accepting bribe from a few people promising jobs for various posts in State Transport Undertakings when he was transport minister in the erstwhile AIADMK regime between 2011 and 2014.
V Senthil Balaji, Electricity MinisterTerming the Madras High Court’s order that quashed the criminal complaints as erroneous, a bench of Justices Abdul Nazeer and V Ramasubramanian directed the investigating officer to conduct further investigation and include the findings in the chargesheet of offences under Prevention of Corruption Act.
“The I.O. shall now proceed under Section 173(8) of the Code to file a further report, based on the observations made in the preceding paragraphs. Additionally/alternatively, the Special Court before which the CC is pending, shall exercise power under Section 216 of the CrPC if there is any reluctance on the part of the State/I.O.
If two other cases where offences under the PC Act are included are under the orders of stay passed by the HC, the State should take appropriate steps to have the stay vacated,” the judges said. On IO’s failure to include charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act in the chargesheet, the SC said, “even a novice in criminal law would not have left the offences under the PC Act out of the final report.”
SC refuses to pass order on forming SIT
“The attempt of the IO appears to be of one “willing to strike but afraid to wound,” the court said. T he bench also refused to pass any order on the prayers for constituting a special investigation team (sit) or appointing a special public prosecutor but said that based on the observations, the State may itself do the needful.
“State ought to have undertaken a comprehensive investigation into the entire scam, without allowing the accused to fish out one case as if it was a private money dispute,” the bench said. Court’s order came in pleas filed by P Dharamaraj who participated in the process of selection of appointment for the jobs but was not selected.
The Madras HC had quashed the proceedings on being informed that the complainant and thirteen alleged victims of the recruitment scam had arrived at a settlement and have been repaid the money owed. Proceeding to quash the case, Justice N Nirmal Kumar of the Madras HC in his July 30, 2021, order said, “The case is still at the stage of trial.
By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromised the dispute amicably among themselves. This court enquired both the parties and is satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.
In view of the above, no useful purpose would be achieved by keeping the above case pending … Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in this case, even though the offences involved are not compoundable in nature.”
No order on SIT or SPPDelhi: The bench also refused to pass any order on the prayers for constituting a SIT or appointing a special public prosecutor but said that based on its observations, the State may do the needful
NEW DELHI: In a setback to Tamil Nadu Electricity Minister Senthil Balaji, the Supreme Court on Thursday restored a criminal complaint filed against the minister and three others, including his brother, for allegedly accepting bribe from a few people promising jobs for various posts in State Transport Undertakings when he was transport minister in the erstwhile AIADMK regime between 2011 and 2014.
V Senthil Balaji, Electricity MinisterTerming the Madras High Court’s order that quashed the criminal complaints as erroneous, a bench of Justices Abdul Nazeer and V Ramasubramanian directed the investigating officer to conduct further investigation and include the findings in the chargesheet of offences under Prevention of Corruption Act.
“The I.O. shall now proceed under Section 173(8) of the Code to file a further report, based on the observations made in the preceding paragraphs. Additionally/alternatively, the Special Court before which the CC is pending, shall exercise power under Section 216 of the CrPC if there is any reluctance on the part of the State/I.O.
If two other cases where offences under the PC Act are included are under the orders of stay passed by the HC, the State should take appropriate steps to have the stay vacated,” the judges said. On IO’s failure to include charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act in the chargesheet, the SC said, “even a novice in criminal law would not have left the offences under the PC Act out of the final report.”
SC refuses to pass order on forming SIT
“The attempt of the IO appears to be of one “willing to strike but afraid to wound,” the court said. T he bench also refused to pass any order on the prayers for constituting a special investigation team (sit) or appointing a special public prosecutor but said that based on the observations, the State may itself do the needful.
“State ought to have undertaken a comprehensive investigation into the entire scam, without allowing the accused to fish out one case as if it was a private money dispute,” the bench said. Court’s order came in pleas filed by P Dharamaraj who participated in the process of selection of appointment for the jobs but was not selected.
The Madras HC had quashed the proceedings on being informed that the complainant and thirteen alleged victims of the recruitment scam had arrived at a settlement and have been repaid the money owed. Proceeding to quash the case, Justice N Nirmal Kumar of the Madras HC in his July 30, 2021, order said, “The case is still at the stage of trial.
By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromised the dispute amicably among themselves. This court enquired both the parties and is satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.
In view of the above, no useful purpose would be achieved by keeping the above case pending … Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in this case, even though the offences involved are not compoundable in nature.”
No order on SIT or SPP
Delhi: The bench also refused to pass any order on the prayers for constituting a SIT or appointing a special public prosecutor but said that based on its observations, the State may do the needful
