Court says cognisance is of the offence, not the section; transfer to Principal District Judge valid, no fresh sanction needed, and informant-cum-investigating officer point rejected.
The Madras High Court has dismissed a criminal revision filed by former Tamil Nadu Minister M.R.K. Panneerselvam, his wife and son, challenging the continuation of disproportionate assets proceedings against them. Justice V. Lakshminarayanan held that the trial court was right in refusing to reject the charge sheet and discharge the accused in the corruption case.
The case concerns allegations that the former Minister, while serving as MLA and Health Minister between 2006 and 2011, amassed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The prosecution alleged that the family possessed properties worth over Rs.4.41 crore at the end of the check period, against assets of about Rs.61 lakh at the beginning, and that the increase could not be satisfactorily explained.
The petitioners argued that cognisance had originally been taken only for offences under Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and not under Section 109 IPC, which was invoked against the wife and son as alleged abettors. Rejecting this contention, the Court reiterated that cognisance is taken of the offence and not of the offender or of any particular statutory provision. It noted that the court is not bound by the exact sections mentioned in the police report and may proceed on the basis of the offences disclosed by the materials.
The Court also rejected the argument that fresh sanction was required after the case was transferred from the Chief Judicial Magistrate to the Principal District Judge and renumbered. It held that the transfer and fresh summons did not amount to fresh cognisance. Since cognisance had already been taken in 2012, when the first accused had demitted office, no fresh sanction was necessary under the amended Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court further held that sanction under Section 197 CrPC was not required because the alleged offence of amassing wealth beyond known sources of income had no nexus with official duty.
On the issue of the informant and investigating officer being the same person, the Court relied on the Constitution Bench ruling in Mukesh Singh and held that this by itself does not vitiate the investigation or trial. The earlier contrary view in Mohan Lal was noted as having been overruled.
The petitioners had also challenged the administrative transfer of the case from the Chief Judicial Magistrate to the Principal District Judge, arguing that such transfer could be made only under Sections 406 or 407 CrPC. The High Court upheld the transfer, observing that the Principal District Judge was a duly notified Special Judge competent to try Prevention of Corruption Act cases. It relied on Supreme Court precedents, including Ranbir Yadav and Ajay Singh, to hold that the High Court has plenary administrative power under Article 227 to transfer cases between competent courts for administrative reasons.
However, the Court observed that the broader issue of wholesale administrative transfer of all such cases may require reconsideration and directed the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice for an appropriate decision.
The Court also rejected the plea that the earlier High Court order directing framing of charges had been wiped out after the petitioners withdrew their special leave petitions before the Supreme Court. It held that withdrawal of the SLP did not nullify the High Court’s order; rather, the order continued to stand.
Finally, the Court said questions relating to the non-arraying of one alleged dependant and the plea that the disproportionate assets were less than 10% of income are matters for trial, not discharge. Finding no ground to interfere, the High Court dismissed the revision and directed the trial court to frame charges and proceed with the case.
Bottom Line :
Prevention of Corruption Act - Disproportionate assets case against former Minister, wife and son - Cognisance is of offence and not of offender or specific penal section - Transfer of case from Chief Judicial Magistrate to Principal District Judge by administrative order under Article 227 of Constitution upheld where transferee court is competent Special Court - Re-numbering and issuance of fresh summons on transfer do not amount to fresh cognisance - No fresh sanction required under amended Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 when cognisance had already been taken under unamended law after accused had demitted office - Informant and Investigating Officer being same person does not by itself vitiate trial after Constitution Bench decision in Mukesh Singh.
Statutory provision(s): Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Sections 13(1)(e), 13(2), 19, 3, Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 109, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sections 190, 197, 216, 406, 407, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Sections 210, 218, 239, 528, 531, Constitution of India, 1950 Article 227
M.R.K. Panneerselvam v. State of Tamil Nadu, (Madras) : Law Finder Doc id # 2984123
