CHENNAI: After nearly a decade, the Madras High Court on Wednesday set aside an order of a trial court in Chennai discharging former DMK transport minister K Ponmudi and his family members from a land grab case.A perusal of the final report filed under section 173(2) CrPC and the documents sent with it, would disclose a prima facie case against the accused, Justice P Velmurugan observed.
According to prosecution, during his tenure as Transport Minister, Ponmudi had illegally grabbed a land measuring 3,630 sqft in North Avenue, Srinagar Colony at Saidapet, by means of fabricated documents in the name of his mother-in-law P Saraswathi, as if the plot was sold to her by one K Kannan @ Kannappan for about `8 lakh. Subsequently, Ponmudi constructed a house worth about `35 lakh on the plot and started living there. Based on information, after observing the due process of law, the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption registered a case for offences under various sections of IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act against him and nine others.
At the stage of framing of charges, the accused filed a petition before the Third Additional Sessions, who on April 26, 2007 discharged Ponmudi and all the other accused from the case. Challenging this, the DV&AC Wing filed the revision petition. Allowing it, Justice Velmurugan observed there are sufficient grounds which makes prima facie to proceed against the accused. The trial judge had discussed the merits of the case beyond the scope of 239(1) CrPC and discharged them. It is settled law that at the stage of framing the charges, the court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
The court is not required to appreciate evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the material produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. If the court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further, then a charge has to be framed.At the stage of framing the charge, inquiry must necessarily be limited to deciding if the facts emerging from such material constitute the offence with which the accused could be charged. The court may examine the records for that limited purpose, but it is not required to marshal with a view to decide the reliability thereof. At this stage, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the accused has been made out, the judge said and allowed the revision petition of DV&AC.
Lower court directed to certify fee bills of woman APP
Chennai: A Madras High Court judge has come to the help of a woman Additional Public Prosecutor working in a lower court with a direction to the lower court judge to certify her fee bills! M Prabhavathy has been appointed as APP in July 2011. She submitted her fee bills for her appearance before the courts up to April this year, before the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, for clearance. But the judge returned the bills on the ground that her tenure had expired and hence she did not have the authority to present the bills. Aggrieved, the APP filed a criminal original petition for a direction to the lower court judge. When the matter came up for hearing on July 17, Justice M S Ramesh, held that the tenure of Prabavathy was not determined with any expiry date and as such the bills produced were valid. Since the HC had indicated to the lower court that the tenure of the APP has not come to an end as there was no mention about the expiry date of her appointment, the reasoning of the lower court judge was not proper, Justice Ramesh said. ens