The Madras High Court Monday set aside a special court order to close an illegal land allotment case against Tamil Nadu minister I Periyasamy. .Justice Anand Venkatesh said that the special court's order was one of "gross illegality" and directed Periyasamy to face trial in the case.."The legitimacy of the administration of criminal justice will be eroded and public confidence shaken if MLAs and Ministers facing corruption cases can short-circuit criminal trials by adopting the modus operandi that has been carried out in this case. The public should not be led to believe that a trial against a politician in this State is nothing but a mockery of dispensing criminal justice. A Constitutional Court is duty-bound, under the Constitution, to ensure that such things do not come to pass," the judge said while directing the special court to re-commence trial in the case..Justice Venkatesh pronounced the verdict on a suo motu revision case that he had initiated against the discharge of the Rural Development Minister in the DMK-led government, Periyasamy from a case of alleged irregular allotment of a Tamil Nadu Housing Board (TNHB) plot to the personal security officer (PSO) of former Chief Minister M Karunanidhi..The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) had booked Periyasamy after the AIADMK came to power in 2011. The DVAC's case against Periyasamy relates to the allotment of a high-income group plot in Chennai to Karunanidhi's PSO, Ganesan, when Periyasamy served as Housing Minister during the DMK regime in March 2008. .While the then legislative assembly speaker had granted sanction for Periyasamy's prosecution in 2012, the minister filed a discharge petition in 2016 claiming that such sanction should have been granted by the Governor and not the speaker. Subsequently, in July 2016, a special court dismissed the discharge application. This order was confirmed by the High Court and the Supreme Court in November and December 2022 respectively. Periyasamy, however, went on to file another discharge petition before the special court on February 21, 2023, on the ground that the sanction was invalid. This time, the special court accepted the minister's contention and on March 17, 2023, passed an order discharging Periyasamy from the case. This order has now been set aside by the High Court. .While setting aside the special court's order, Justice Venkatesh said that the special court had gone beyond its powers in entertaining and allowing Periyasamy's second plea for discharge.The Court noted that after the High Court and the Supreme Court had upheld the special court's first order dismissing Periyasamy's plea and directed it to commence the trial in the case, the special court should not have acted in defiance by agreeing to hear the minister's second petition seeking the same relief..The Court also said that the special court had erroneously interpreted Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act to hold that only the Governor could be the proper sanctioning authority in Periyasamy's case for the minister was a State government employee and not an officer or employee of the Union government. ."The Special Court discharging the 2nd respondent (Periyasamy) from the case on the ostensible ground of a supposed defect/invalidity in sanction under Section 19 of the P.C Act, 1988 suffers from manifest perversity and gross illegality. It is also tainted by procedural impropriety as the Special Court had acted in open defiance of the order dated 11.11.2022 passed by this Court in Crl.R.C 1112 of 2015, Crl.R.C 957 and 983 of 2016 dismissing the first round of discharge petitions and directing the Special Court to proceed with trial. To compound the illegality, the Special Court has discharged the 2 nd respondent (A3) from the case for all eternity as if the order of discharge on the ground of want of sanction operated as an acquittal," Justice Venkatesh said..In light of the above, it was clear that the special court's March 2023 order allowing Periyasamy's application for discharge warranted the High Court's intervention, Justice Venkatesh said.The High Court accordingly directed the special court to re-commence trial in the case and also directed Periyasamy and his co-accused to appear before the special court on March 28 this year..In the High Court, Senior Counsel Ranjit Kumar appeared for Periyasamy. Advocate General PS Raman appeared for the DVAC. .[Read Order]
The Madras High Court Monday set aside a special court order to close an illegal land allotment case against Tamil Nadu minister I Periyasamy. .Justice Anand Venkatesh said that the special court's order was one of "gross illegality" and directed Periyasamy to face trial in the case.."The legitimacy of the administration of criminal justice will be eroded and public confidence shaken if MLAs and Ministers facing corruption cases can short-circuit criminal trials by adopting the modus operandi that has been carried out in this case. The public should not be led to believe that a trial against a politician in this State is nothing but a mockery of dispensing criminal justice. A Constitutional Court is duty-bound, under the Constitution, to ensure that such things do not come to pass," the judge said while directing the special court to re-commence trial in the case..Justice Venkatesh pronounced the verdict on a suo motu revision case that he had initiated against the discharge of the Rural Development Minister in the DMK-led government, Periyasamy from a case of alleged irregular allotment of a Tamil Nadu Housing Board (TNHB) plot to the personal security officer (PSO) of former Chief Minister M Karunanidhi..The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) had booked Periyasamy after the AIADMK came to power in 2011. The DVAC's case against Periyasamy relates to the allotment of a high-income group plot in Chennai to Karunanidhi's PSO, Ganesan, when Periyasamy served as Housing Minister during the DMK regime in March 2008. .While the then legislative assembly speaker had granted sanction for Periyasamy's prosecution in 2012, the minister filed a discharge petition in 2016 claiming that such sanction should have been granted by the Governor and not the speaker. Subsequently, in July 2016, a special court dismissed the discharge application. This order was confirmed by the High Court and the Supreme Court in November and December 2022 respectively. Periyasamy, however, went on to file another discharge petition before the special court on February 21, 2023, on the ground that the sanction was invalid. This time, the special court accepted the minister's contention and on March 17, 2023, passed an order discharging Periyasamy from the case. This order has now been set aside by the High Court. .While setting aside the special court's order, Justice Venkatesh said that the special court had gone beyond its powers in entertaining and allowing Periyasamy's second plea for discharge.The Court noted that after the High Court and the Supreme Court had upheld the special court's first order dismissing Periyasamy's plea and directed it to commence the trial in the case, the special court should not have acted in defiance by agreeing to hear the minister's second petition seeking the same relief..The Court also said that the special court had erroneously interpreted Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act to hold that only the Governor could be the proper sanctioning authority in Periyasamy's case for the minister was a State government employee and not an officer or employee of the Union government. ."The Special Court discharging the 2nd respondent (Periyasamy) from the case on the ostensible ground of a supposed defect/invalidity in sanction under Section 19 of the P.C Act, 1988 suffers from manifest perversity and gross illegality. It is also tainted by procedural impropriety as the Special Court had acted in open defiance of the order dated 11.11.2022 passed by this Court in Crl.R.C 1112 of 2015, Crl.R.C 957 and 983 of 2016 dismissing the first round of discharge petitions and directing the Special Court to proceed with trial. To compound the illegality, the Special Court has discharged the 2 nd respondent (A3) from the case for all eternity as if the order of discharge on the ground of want of sanction operated as an acquittal," Justice Venkatesh said..In light of the above, it was clear that the special court's March 2023 order allowing Periyasamy's application for discharge warranted the High Court's intervention, Justice Venkatesh said.The High Court accordingly directed the special court to re-commence trial in the case and also directed Periyasamy and his co-accused to appear before the special court on March 28 this year..In the High Court, Senior Counsel Ranjit Kumar appeared for Periyasamy. Advocate General PS Raman appeared for the DVAC. .[Read Order]
