C.Selvaramachandran v. State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR and Crl.M.P.No.10983 of 2024 C.Selvaramachandran ... Petitioner/A1 Vs.
1.State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Thiruvallur - 602 001.
2.K.Jaishankar ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, praying to call for the records in F.I.R. in Crime No.1/AC/2024/TVL dated 30.01.2024 on the file of the first respondent and other connected records and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.S.S.Pillai for Mr.K.Arunprasad For Respondent-1 : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) 1/8
O R D E R
The petitioner/A1 in Crime No.1 of 2024 for offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 had filed the above quash petition.
2.The contention of the petitioner is that petitioner is a Sub Registrar in R.K.Pet Sub Registrar Office, R.K.Pet Taluk, Thiruvallur District. The prosecution projected a case against the petitioner that he demanded illegal gratification through A2/ Data Entry Operator and collected the bribe amount on 30.01.2024. It is further projected that a sale deed was executed on 22.01.2024 between Ayyappan and one Narasimman, who presented the same for registration and the sale deed consideration was mentioned as Rs.75,900/-. Since there was variation in the sale consideration and to the value of the property, it was kept as pending document for the purpose of spot inspection and verification. But it was projected as though the 2/8
petitioner demanded bribe document and for that purpose the file was kept pending.
3.The further contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner not demanded, received trap amount and no recovery was made from him. On the other hand, recovery alleged to have been made from A2 and the petitioner has been prosecuted. He further submitted that in the SRO office CCTV cameras available and all the happenings are recorded. Hence, the petitioner collected CCTV recordings through RTI and produced the same to the investigating officer and the investigation officer not considered the same. The petitioner also informed that this CCTV recordings does not find place in the final report. Hence, he filed the above petition. 4.The petitioner filed additional grounds, the relevant paragraphs read as follows:
"8.It is further submitted that immediately after the occurrence, the accuse/Al was arrested and remanded. After 3/8
releasing on bail the accused/petitioner obtain the CCTV footage for the relevant period under the R.T.I Act. The copy has been given on 26.06.2024. Upon perusal of the CCTV footage it is learned that the complainant was not accompanied with any witnesses and the alleged trap money was not demanded and accepted by Al the petitioner. The CCTV footage falsify the entire prosecution case.
9. It is further submitted that the copy of the CCTV footage was also informed to the inspector of police, V and AC Tiruvallur and requested to consider at the time of investigation but the investigating officer failed to conduct and enquiry with regard to the CCTV footage either with any of, the official of S.R.Q, R.K.Pettai, Tiruvallur or with the Accused Al/petitioner.
10. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation the investigating officer also collected the CCTV footage from the S.R.O office Tiruvallur. It is further submitted that the said CCTV footage which falsifies the entire prosecution case was suppressed by the investigating officer and failed to submit the same along with the final report."
5.The learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that the CCTV recordings produced by the petitioner not considered by the 4/8
prosecution. Hence, the CCTV recordings collected through RTI may be considered during trial.
6.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent refuted the petitioner's contention stating that it is only an apprehension of the petitioner. The prosecution has been conducted in a fair manner and whatever materials collected will be produced before the trial Court. He further submitted that the investigating officer independently collected CCTV recordings but the same not included in the charge sheet, which was filed on 01.03.2025 through e-filing. He further submitted that since the petitioner is insisting on the CCTV recordings, which is available with the prosecution, it would be filed before the trial Court and taken as part of the charge sheet along with 65-B Certificate. 7.The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that on the day of trap, i.e., on 30.01.2024, the petitioner was examined by one 5/8
K.V.Kalaiselvan, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and AntiCorruption and petitioner gave his explanation but not produced before the trial Court. The same may also be considered. 8.The learned Government Advocate submitted that statement of the petitioner already sent to the trial Court and the petitioner can rely on the same during trial.
9.Recording the submission of the learned Government Advocate, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition closed.
21.03.2025 Index: Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order rsi 6/8
To:
1.The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Thiruvallur - 602 001.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
7/8
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
rsi and Crl.M.P.No.10983 of 2024 21.03.2025 8/8