TITLE: Anti-Corruption Special Investigation Cell V. B. Valarmathi.
Decided On: September 8, 2023.
SUO MOTU Crl.R.C.No.1558 of 2023.
CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh.
Facts:
Mrs. B. Valarmathi was elected to the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly from the Alandur constituency on an AIADMK ticket in May 2001. Between 19.05.2001 and 26.08.2004 she was the Minister for Social Welfare Development. She was later the Minister for Rural Industries from 27.08.2004 to 13.05.2006. The case against B Valarmathi was that while serving as a Minister in the AIADMK cabinet between 2001 and 2006, she, along with her husband and sons had acquired substantial properties and pecuniary resources to the tune of Rs.1,70,34,871. The DVAC had proceeded against the former Minister and later, with a change in power and the accused coming back to power, the DVAC filed a petition for further investigation and did a complete volte face from the earlier stand taken in the charge sheet.
Legal Analysis and Decision:
The court added that it was “strange and ironic that the same Investigating officer who had filed the chargesheet had, after further investigation filed a counter affidavit saying that the accused had not acquired any property during the check period. The court added that it was unfortunate that a premier investigating agency had become a plaything in the hands of the politicians. The court also noted that while dealing with the discharge petitions filed by Valarmathi, the Special Court had in fact conducted a mini trial and donning the role of a Chartered Accountant enquired into the materials adduced by the accused, comparing it with the information provided by the DVAC and pronouncing a verdict on its merit. The court added that the Special Court had gone on to say that the prosecution had not proved the charge against the accused, even though Court was merely dealing with a discharge petition and not a final hearing post trial. The court also noted that the Special Court had reached the conclusion largely based on income tax returns which itself could not be the basis for discharging the accused in a corruption case. The court further noted that the most important reason that the Special Court gave for discharging the accused was that a final opportunity notice was not given before filing the final report. It was noted that though the Special Court had relied upon a decision of the High Court to say that non-issuance of final notice was gravely fatal to prosecution, this decision was reversed by the Supreme Court. The court added that non-issuance of notice could not be a ground for discharging the accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Conclusion:
The Madras High Court has once again taken suo motu cognizance of decisions discharging Ministers in corruption cases after deciding to scrutinise every decision made by the Special MP/MLA Courts in instances involving politicians. The Judge described it as an institutional issue and said that the system had repeatedly failed and that only God could save the Institution.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.
