State By The Inspector Of Police vs. P. Murugesa Boopathi

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1536 OF 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No.4155 of 2018)

STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ... APPELLANT(S)

$VS.$

P. MURUGESA BOOPATHI

<pre>... RESPONDENT(S)</pre>

O R D E R

Leave granted.

Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the parties.

The appellant is being prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 465, 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "the IPC") and under Section $13(2)$ read with Section $13(1)(d)$ of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 109 of the IPC. The Special Court rejected the application for discharge.

Being aggrieved by the said order, a Revision Application was filed by the appellant under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the CRPC"). By a very long impugned judgment running into 67 pages, the Revision Application has been allowed. In paragraph 55A of the impugned

$\mathbf{1}$

judgment, the High Court has framed three questions for determination. All the three questions are based on defences urged by the appellant. Moreover, a document which is not forming a part of the charge-sheet has been taken into consideration in favour of the appellant. The High Court has completely misunderstood the scope of hearing on discharge. The Court has to only take into consideration the material forming part of the chargesheet and by taking it as correct, the Court has to record a finding whether a case is made out to proceed against the accused.

In this case, defences of the appellant have been considered and by conducting mini trial, findings have been arrived at. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. However, it is pointed out that before the High Court, a specific contention was raised based on absence of prior sanction under Section 197 of the CRPC. The fact that the said contention was raised is clear from the submissions of the counsel for the appellant recorded in the impugned judgment. However, there is no finding recorded by the High Court.

Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 25th May, 2017 and restore Criminal Revision Case No.776 of 2016 to the file of the High Court of Judicature at Madras. However, after remand, the adjudication will remain confined to the effect of want of sanction under Section 197 of the CRPC. The restored

2

Revision Application shall be listed before the roster Bench of the High Court on 28th April, 2025. The parties to the appeal shall remain present on that day and no further notice shall be served upon them.

Considering the fact that the Revision Application is of the year 2016, the High Court will give necessary priority to the disposal of the Revision Application.

All questions on the issue of sanction are left open to be decided by the High Court. In any case, all defences of the appellant in trial are also kept open.

The appeal is allowed on the above terms.

..........................J. (ABHAY S.OKA)

..........................J. (UJJAL BHUYAN)

NEW DELHI; March 26, 2025

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 4155/2018

[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25-05-2017 in CRLRC No. 776/2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras]

STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

P. MURUGESA BOOPATHI Respondent(s) [ IN FIRST TEN CASES ] (IA No. 62697/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 26-03-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN For Petitioner(s) : Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Ms. Azka Sheikh, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. R Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv. Dr. Ram Sankar, Adv. Mrs. Harini Ramsankar, Adv. Mr. Udhya Kumar, Adv. Mr. B Venkatraman, Adv. Ms. Sujatha Bagadhi, Adv. Ms. Sanya Minhas, Adv. Mrs. Usha Prabakaran, Adv. For M/S. Ram Sankar & Co, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending application also stands disposed of. (ANITA MALHOTRA) (AVGV RAMU) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER (Signed order is placed on the file.)