K.Balakrishnan v. The State Of Tamil Nadu, Rep By Its

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 17.07.2020 PRONOUNCED ON : 14.10.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Crl.O.P.No.6759 of 2020 K.Balakrishnan ... Petitioner/Accused Vs.

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

2. The Director General of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, No.293, M.K.N Road, Alandur, Chennai-600 016.

3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Namakkal.

(Crime No.6/AC/2018).

4. The Superintendent of Police, Western Range, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, No.293, M.K.N Road, Alandur, Chennai-600 016.

5. The Joint Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, E.V.K. Sampath Building, 3rd Floor, College Road, Chennai-600 006.

..Respondents/Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to withdraw the investigation in Crime No.6/AC/2018 from the 4th respondent and to transfer it to the 5th respondent for fair and thorough investigation.

For Petitioner :

Mr.N.Manoharan for Mr.N.Ponraj For Respondents:

Mr.C.Iyyappa Raj, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking for transfer of investigation in FIR in Crime No.6/AC/2018 from the file of the 4th respondent to the file of the 5th respondent. 2.The FIR in Crime No.6/AC/2018 came to be registered against the petitioner on 16.02.2018 by the 3rd respondent/the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Namakkal, for offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as though the petitioner allegedly demanded bribe between 03.02.2018 and 06.02.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested and remanded judicial custody on 17.02.2018 and the offence under Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) was included in FIR. The petitioner was granted bail on 07.03.2018 and was placed under suspension from 19.02.2018. The petitioner was earlier working as Tahsildar, Namakkal Taluk from 23.08.2017.

3.The petitioner was specially posted as Tahsildar, Namakkal to prevent sand theft from river Cauvery at Mohanur and Palamedu area in Namakkal District. Prior to it, he was Tahsildar at Senthamangalam. The defacto complainant Chinnathambi, who was informer to the Revenue Department, called the petitioner over mobile phone No.97901 13050 through his mobile No.99437 09571 and enquired about the vehicle which the petitioner intercepted on 03.02.2018 while returning with the Sub Collector, Namakkal after inspection on the way to his office near Puthan Santhai, a Taurus Lorry bearing No.TN 30 S 9529 loaded with river sand was found illegally transported from the river Cauvery to Bangalore. The vehicle was seized and kept in the office of Tahsildar. The defacto complainant threatened the petitioner to release the vehicle. In fact, between 11.

00 a.m and 04.00 p.m on 03.02.2018, the defacto complainant called 19 times the petitioner. When the petitioner blocked his phone number, he called over the petitioner's CUG No.94450 00543. On 03.02.2018, the brother of the defacto complainant Murugan working in Police Department called the petitioner on his CUG No.94450 00543, through his police CUG No.94981 67737 and introduced himself as the Sub Inspector of Police working in the office of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Salem Wing and further informed that the Personnels of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Team are owner of the above mentioned offending vehicle bearing No.TN 30 S 9529 and no one ever stopped the vehicle previously, which was running in the name of "Sri Krishna Transports".

Further, he threatened that one Krishnarajan, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption, Krishnagiri is also partner in the above said lorry.

4.On 05.02.2018, the defacto complainant called the petitioner, but he did not respond the call. On 06.02.2018, the defacto complainant called the petitioner personally and threatened that "you have touched my team, for that you will face the consequences later". Further, the defacto complainant also called the petitioner over phone on 06.02.2018, 09.02.2018, 12.02.2018, 14.02.2018 and 15.02.2018. In the meanwhile, the defacto complainant approached the Sub Collector, Namakkal for releasing the vehicle. The Sub Collector, Namakkal passed the order to release the lorry subject to the payment of penalty. 5.On 16.02.2018 at about 07.30 p.m, the defacto complainant came to Tahsildar office, enquired the Office Assistant about the availability of the petitioner in the office.

Thereafter, submitting the copy of the order of Sub Collector, Namakkal, received the key of lorry and informed that since the driver is not immediately available, he will take the vehicle on the next day. At about 07.48 p.m., the defacto complainant called the petitioner, but he did not respond. Thereafter, the Office Assistant called the petitioner and informed this information at about 07.50 p.m.

6.On 17.02.2018, the petitioner was making arrangements for the function to celebrate 125th year of Government Higher Secondary School, Namakkal, since three Ministers of State Government consented to participate in the function. The petitioner had come to the office, left his bike and was about to get into his official Jeep. At that time, the petitioner received a phone call from VAO, Dakshinamurthy and he was speaking to him.

The defacto complainant Chinnathambi, suddenly, emerged between the lorry, came and thrusted the tainted money in the hands of the petitioner and left the place. Immediately, the trap team came there, subjected the petitioner's hand for phenolphthalein test, which turned positive. Thereafter, on the arrival of the Office Assistant, the office of the petitioner was opened and the trap team conducted recovery proceedings in the office room of the petitioner. The defacto complainant, who is well connected with the local sand mafia group, had arranged press and publicized the trap through the media. The petitioner was arrested on 17.02.2018 at about 01.30 p.m. At that time, petitioner complained of chest pain, he was taken to Namakkal Government Hospital, where the Special Judge remanded the petitioner. 7.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defacto complainant Chinnathambi was involved in sand mafia.

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Namakkal, Nallamal the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Namakkal and Rajkumar, Head Constable of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, have all conspired together in framing up the petitioner to implicate him in this case. From 03.02.2018, they have planned to implicate the petitioner. It is stated that on 06.02.2018, when the defacto complainant met the petitioner in his office, the petitioner demanded money, which was recorded in his mobile phone and thereafter, the voice recorder was placed and the defacto complainant went to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption office on 15.02.2018 and lodged the complaint. Thereafter, FIR was registered on 16.02.2018 and on 17.02.2018, the trap was laid.

According to the petitioner, the entire trap proceedings was recorded through audio and video. These video and audio recordings were transferred into CD, which was forwarded to the Forensic Department through the Court for examination. The same has not been produced so far. 8.The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that he is not aware of any such video and audio recordings. If such recordings were available, the same would have found place in the entrustment mahazar as well as recovery mahazar. There is no such reference of recordings of audio and video in the entrustment and recovery mahazar. The press which was arranged by the defacto complainant recorded and flashed the news in the media.

Recordings which were telecasted in the media was subsequent to the actual trap, which was forced to be enacted and it is not a contemporary recording. He further submitted that the frequent phone calls between the various persons among themselves from 03.02.2018 upto the date of the trap would clearly show that all the said officials of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption have conspired with each other to implicate this petitioner in a trap case. The petitioner immediately after coming out on bail on 09.03.

2018 sent representation to the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu Government, Secretariat, Chennai; Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai; the Director General of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, Chennai; the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, West Range, Chennai; the Joint Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, Chennai and the Superintendent of Police, Namakkal and also sent 2nd representation on 12.03.2018. Both the representations were not acted upon. Hence, the petitioner filed Crl.O.P.No.12065 of 2018 to transfer the investigation in Crime No.6/AC/2018.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that this Court by order dated 03.05.2018, directed the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai to appoint any other police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police to take up the investigation and proceed further and also to

conduct a separate investigation on the incriminating materials filed against the defacto complainant and others by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner moved SLP(Crl)No.5890 of 2018, before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 06.08.2018 with liberty, seeking transfer of investigation to some other department of the State of Tamil Nadu. Since there was no investigation on the representation made by the petitioner despite the order of this Court, the petitioner moved another Crl.O.P.No.22080 of 2018, seeking transfer of investigation to the Additional Director General of Police, Crime Branch CID, Egmore, Chennai, wherein on 11.10.2018, a direction was given to the respondents therein to get call details of the police officers named in the complaint and the defacto complainant.

The submission of the Additional Advocate General appeared for respondents therein in Crl.O.P.No.22080 of 2018 was that the Vigilance and Anti Corruption passed an order dated 10.11.2018 and appointed Tmt.S.Lakshmi,.I.P.S, Superintendent of Police, Western Range, Vigilance and Anti Corruption to proceed with the investigation. Finally, this Court by order dated 12.11.2018, directed Tmt.S.Lakshmi,.I.P.S, Superintendent of Police, Western Range, Vigilance and Anti Corruption to investigate the above case without assistance of the officials of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Namakkal and permitted the petitioner to file additional documents, if any.

Thereafter, the petitioner submitted complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Western Range, Coimbatore, but the Superintendent of Police, Western Range, Coimbatore failed to act on the complaint submitted by the petitioner as per orders of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.12065 of 2018 and Crl.O.P.No.22080 of 2018. Hence, the present petition.

10.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents submitted that following the orders of this Court, the Director, Vigilance and Anti Corruption authorized Tmt.H.Jayalakshmi, the then Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Western Range to take up the investigation and to proceed further. On 12.07.2018, the Case Diary of the case was handed over to Tmt.H.Jayalakshmi, the then Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Western Range by Tmt.M.Nallammal, Inspector of Police, Namakkal Detachment. Thereafter, further investigation was entrusted to Tmt.M.Kingshlin, Superintendent of Police, Special Investigation Cell, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai incharge of Western Range by proceedings dated 17.09.2018.

11.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that Tmt.S.Lakshmi., I.P.S, Superintendent of Police, Western Range entrusted with further investigation on 10.11.2018. She took up investigation on 03.12.2018. During

investigation, the said Mr.A.T.Jayakumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Namakkal produced two Compact Discs containing voice recordings of the petitioner recorded on 06.12.2018 and on 15.02.2018 along with certificates under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, which was examined by the then Investigating Officer Tmt.M.Kingshilin, Superintendent of Police. Further, the same was sent to the Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal under form 91. He had also provided a copy of video clips for the purpose of investigation. From the same, it is seen that the petitioner received bribe amount, counted the same and kept with him without any undue pressure. Thus the contention of the petitioner that the money was thrusted by the defacto complainant is false. 12.

Further, the Compact Disc containing audio recordings and video recordings were sent to the Forensic Department and awaiting report. The respondent Police have made request to the Forensic Department and sought specimen voice records of the petitioner and others, after obtaining necessary order from the Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal. 13.This Court by order dated 12.11.2018 in Crl.O.P.No.22080 of 2018 granted liberty to the petitioner to file documents and other materials before the Investigating officer. Accordingly, the petitioner made written representations to the Investigating Officer and it was enquired. The petitioner has placed his defence to disprove the case against him, relying on the continuous call details of the Vigilance officials, the defacto complaint and his brother prior to registration of the case i.

e., from 05.02.2018 to 16.02.2018. The call detail records of mobile phone used by Mr.G.Kirushnaa Raajan, Deputy Superintendent of Police; Mr.A.T.Jaikumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police; M.Nallammal, Inspector of Police; Mr.M.Rajkumar, Head Constable, Vigilance and Anti Corruption; the defacto complainant and G.Murugan, Head Constable attached to Police Traffic Patrol Team, Omalur and P.Settu, Driver of the lorry were obtained and they were examined in this regard. From which, it is seen that the calls existed between the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mr.Kirushnaa Raajan and Murugan, brother of the defacto complainant are seven calls between 03.02.2018 and 15.02.2018 and two calls were between the Mr.Kirushnaa Raajan, the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the defacto complainant on 08.02.2018.

Similarly, there have been 13 calls between the defacto complainant and Mr.Rajkumar, Head Constable, Tmt.Nallamal, Inspector of Vigilance and Anti Corruption during the period from 08.02.2018 to 15.02.2018. 14.It is further submitted that in this case, during the period from 01.06.2017 to 02.02.

of which 89 calls were incoming calls to the petitioner and 19 calls, the petitioner had contacted the defacto complainant. Thus, it is seen that the petitioner and the defacto complainant were in continuous touch and close nexus between them. This fact has been completely suppressed by the petitioner. 15.The recording of conversation made on 06.02.2018 and 15.02.2018 would clearly prove that the petitioner made demand of Rs.10,000/- from the defacto complainant and he received the bribe amount, which is recorded through video in presence of independent witnesses. The contacts between the officials of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption and the defacto complainant cannot be found fault with.

The brother of the defacto complainant Murugan contacted the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, since he worked with him previously. It is admitted that the brother of the defacto complainant Murugan initiated complaint to Mr.Kirushnaa Raajan, Deputy Superintendent of Police against the petitioner for making demand. Mr.Kirushnaa Raajan, Deputy Superintendent of Police informed Murugan to advice his brother defacto complainant to record the conversation through mobile phone. Based on which on 06.02.2018, the conversation was recorded and the defacto complainant produced the same to Mr.Jaikumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Namakkal.

Mr.Jaikumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Namakkal insisted the defacto complainant to record the conversation between the petitioner and the defacto complainant in the voice recorder belonging to Namakkal, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Office, for which the Head Constable was deputed to the defacto complainant. Thereafter, the voice recording were recorded. On 15.02.2018, both the recordings were downloaded in the computer of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Office. On satisfying about the demand, a preliminary enquiry was conducted and FIR came to be registered on 16.02.2018. Since the petitioner was not available on 16.02.2018, the trap could not be laid on that day. Thereafter on 17.02.2018 between 08.30 and 08.45 a.m., the petitioner was received the bribe amount.

The bribe amount was recovered and the entire trap proceedings have been video graphed and the same was also converted into compact disc. Both the video and audio submitted to the Special Judge which was forwarded to the Forensic Department for examination. Further, the defacto complainant and accompanying witness have clearly stated about the demand, acceptance and recovery. Further, the phenolphthalein test conducted on the hands of the petitioner and left phant pocket turned positive. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested.

16.The entire trap proceedings are recorded in recovery mahazar, which was forwarded to the Court immediately. Further, during investigation, it was found that the involvement of the

other officials of the Revenue Department, Namakkal. The allegation against them as follows:- "A.O-2 Tr.D.Prabhakaran, while working as Assistant at the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal had on the evening of 16.02.2018 at about 18.45 hrs demanded and accepted Rs.3,000/- each as gratification other than legal remuneration for himself from the complainant Tr.G.Chinnathambi and Tr.A.P.Saravanan separately in the presence of accompanying official witness Tr.K.Kumar, PG Assistant as motive for himself for obtaining the release orders from the Sub-Collector towards their vehicles bearing Reg.No.TN 30 Z 8611 respectively, which are involved in the illicit transportation of sand.

The petitioner/accused Tr.K.Balakrishnan, Tahsildar, Namakkal Taluk, Namakkal District (A.O-1), AO-3 Tmt.A.Sundaravalli, Deputy Tahsildar (Head Quarters), Taluk Office, Namakkal, Namakkal District, AO-4 Tmt.P.Jeyalakshmi, Assistant, Social Security Scheme, Taluk Office, Namakkal District. Namakkal District, AO-5 Tr.R.Vadivelu, Senior Revenue Inspector, Taluk Office Kollimalai, Namakkal District, AO-6 Tr.K.Bharathiraja, Revenue Inspector, Taluk Office, Namakkal District entered into a criminal conspiracy with other other with dishonest intention to screen AO-1 from legal punishment by framing incorrect records. In pursuance of such criminal conspiracy, AO-5 & AO-6 forcibly obtained a false report from Tr.S.Rajsekar-Office Assistant on 18.02.2018 under threat to effect that the complainant Tr.G.Chinnathambi refused to take the lorry on 16.

02.2018 even after the key of the vehicle was handed over to him. AO-3 and AO-4 having reason to believe that such documents is false one, prepared a draft letter No.221/2018/A2, dated 16.02.2018 on or after 18.02.2018 incorrectly to be sent to Sub Collector, Namakkal and after getting approval from AO-1 belatedly while he was under judicial custody undergoing treatment at Government Hospital, Namakkal, they sent a fair copy of the letter to the Sub Collector informing him about refusal of the complainant to take the vehicle after getting vehicle key. AO-1, AO-3 and AO-4 being legally bound to furnish true information to the Sub Collector, furnished such information knowing to be false.

legal punishment by framing incorrect records and furnishing false information."

17.The Vigilance Commissioner on 09.03.2020 placed papers before the Government, seeking sanction to prosecute the petitioner and other accused. Following the directions of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.12065 of 2018 and Crl.O.P.No.22050 of 2018, the investigation has been properly conducted. In this case, the investigation has been conducted by senior officers in the cadre of Superintendent of Police, who were nominated as Investigating Officer. The averments made by the petitioner is to stall the investigation by any means. The petitioner by filing one petition or other before this Court dragging the investigation. Further, the petitioner approached the Hon'ble Apex Court by way of filing SLP and later, it was withdrawn by the petitioner. The petitioner, for the sake of defence, is making such bald allegations against one and all.

Hence, he vehemently opposed for the transfer of investigation. 18.Considering the rival submission and on perusal of materials, it is seen that the petitioner had earlier moved Crl.O.P.No.12065 of 2018 and Crl.O.P.No.22080 of 2018 to transfer the investigation and the same were disposed of. In this case, the investigation conducted as per procedure. This petition is filed once again seeking transfer of investigation from the fourth respondent viz., The Superintendent of Police, Western Range, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department to the fifth respondent viz., The Joint Director, Central Bureau of Investigation. The petitioner in Crl.OP.No.12065 of 2018 sought a direction to consider his representation dated 09.03.2018 and for transfer the investigation to CBI. This Court by order dated 03.05.

2018 directed the second respondent herein / The Director General of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department to appoint Police Officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police to take up the investigation and proceed further. Further, gave a direction to conduct separate investigation if any incriminating materials found against the defacto complainant Chinnathambi and others, as regards transfer of investigation to CBI, the prayer was negatived and with the above direction petition was disposed. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner herein filed SLP.No.5890 of 2019 before the Hon'ble Apex Court, and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 06.08.2018 with liberty to the petitioner to apply for modification in handing over the investigation to some other department of State of Tamil Nadu.

As regards the change of investigation to CBI, the prayer negatived by this Court, earlier it has been given up. In view of the same, the order of this Court in Crl.OP.No.12065 of 2018 dated 03.05.2018 becomes final.

19. Further, the petitioner has filed a petition in

Crl.OP.No.22080 of 2018 before this Court seeking transfer of investigation to CBCID and also to collect call details of Police Officials named therein. This Court by order dated 12.11.2018, disposed Crl.O.P.No.22080 of 2018 stating that no further order is required and granted liberty to the petitioner to file documents and other materials before the Investigating Officer. Therefore, this petition is the third in row. The prayer in this petition is seeking transfer of investigation to the 5th respondent/CBI. On the facts of it, though this petition ought to be dismissed in liminie in view of the earlier order passed by this Court, in the interest of Justice to give fair chance to the petitioner, the petition was heard. 20.The primary contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner in furtherance to the earlier orders of this Court.

On 26.12.2018, the petitioner submitted a statement before the fourth respondent, a copy of the same has been produced. On perusal of the same, it is seen that the statement is the narration of the earlier happenings about the pre-trap proceedings and the connivance of Murugan, Iyyapan, Raj Kumar, Chinnathambi and others and also by giving call details. Further, he had made allegations as though audio and video recordings projected in the case are created documents through graphics. This statement had been received by the fourth respondent and the fourth respondent had given a detailed explanation in their status report.

This Court perused the report, but is not going into the explanation and elaborating the same, without going into its merits or otherwise finds that the grievance of the petitioner has been addressed since the trial in this case is yet to commence and any observation made herein might affect the petitioner.

21. Further, the petitioner has already obtained the call detail particulars through RTI, which he can very well use the same while confronting respective witnesses. As regards the CCTV footage in UCO Bank, the Manager of the UCO Bank had sent a reply stating that the CCTV footage is not available with them. Further, the Audio-Video files are submitted to the Court and from the Court, the same are forwarded to the forensic department. It is seen that in this case the investigation had been conducted by the officers in the rank of the Superintendent of Police. The Superintendent of Police in aid to his investigation to summon the witness and to collect documents has used the service of personnels from the Vigilance and AntiCorruption, Namakkal other than this Vigilance and AntiCorruption, Namakkal was not involved in investigation.

It is seen that the said defacto complainant Chinnathambi is not a man of true virtue but that alone will not disqualify him in lodging a complainant or being a witnesses. May be his conduct can be impeached during the trial.

to be decided by the trial Court during trial. A report dated 16.02.2018 is projected to be made only on 18.02.2018 after the arrest of the petitioner. The said Senthil Kumar/Tahsildar who succeeded the petitioner has stated that he had not signed any letter on 16.02.2018. The Sub-Collector, RDO had stated that the report dated 16.02.2018 for not taking the vehicle by Chinnathambi is not necessary. Mr.M.Basker and the other Police Constables attached to the Armed Reserved Police, Namakkal stated that they were posted in the Namakkal Hospital where accused was taking treatment from 17.02.2018 to 23.02.2018. During that period they had no control over the visitors who visited the petitioner since he was in the General Ward and not in the Convict ward and some of the Revenue Officials visited during this period.

The prosecution had produced some documents and statements to show that the report dated 16.02.2018 was prepared much later. This Court restrains from commuting on these statements, since they have to be tested during trial. Though this Court finds some force in the submissions of the petitioner but that alone would not be sufficient to transfer the investigation.

22. Considering that earlier this Court twice dismissed transfer of investigation petition in Crl.O.P.No.12065 of 2018 and Crl.O.P.No.22080 of 2018, again the present petition has been filed. Apart from seeking transfer, the primordial contention is that the petitioner statement/complaint dated 26.12.2012 has not been considered, despite this Court giving positive order earlier. Thus the contention of the petitioner is on a wrong premise. On perusal of the status report, it is found that the misgiving of the petitioner are unfound.

23. In view of the above observations and on the materials, this Court is not inclined to transfer the investigation. Hence, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. It is made clear that the observations and finding made herein are only for the purpose of disposal of the petitions. The trial Court uninfluenced by this order is directed to proceed with the trial and decide the case on its own merits. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

rst/vv2 1.The Secretary to Government, The State of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

2.The Director General of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, No.293, M.K.N Road, Alandur, Chennai-600 016.

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Namakkal.

(Crime No.6/AC/2018).

4.The Superintendent of Police, Western Range, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, No.293, M.K.N Road, Alandur, Chennai-600 016.

5.The Joint Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, E.V.K. Sampath Building, 3rd Floor, College Road, Chennai-600 006.

+1cc to Mr.N.Ponraj, Advocate, sr no.34191 Crl.O.P.No.6759 of 2020 PVS(CO) RMP(24/11/2020)