P. Muthu v. The Deputy Superintendent

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twenty Seventh day of March Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN CRL OP(MD) No.2614 of 2018 P. MUTHU ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED No.1 Vs STATE BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI/ACB/CHENNAI, (CRIME NO.RC MA 1 2016A 0026) (ON THE FILE OF II ADDL SESSIONS COURT (CBI CASES) MADURAI ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.SURESHKUMAR Advocate For Respondent : Mr.N.NAGENDIRAN, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Reserved on : 21.03.2018 Delivered on: 27.03.2018 The petitioner, who is arrayed as Accused No.1, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Section 120(B) r/w. 420 IPC and Section 13

(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, in Crime No.RC MA1 2016 A 0026 and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that when the petitioner/A1 was working as a Traffic Manager in V.O.C. Port Trust, Tuticorin, during the period from 2008 to 2013, he colluded with the officers of the Port Trust and conspired with the representatives of the various Companies, which are importing Coal and collected Rs.27/- towards Wharfage charges instead of Rs.38/- thereby caused loss to the V.O.C. Port Trust. Hence, the present case has been registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 120(B) r/w. 420 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

3.The first and foremost contention raised by the petitioner is, during the tenure when he was working as Traffic Manager, a Meeting was convened and the Board alone decides and approves the

rates for the collection of Wharfage charges. If there is no classification of the goods in the ship, then the Traffic Manager can follow the customs documents, IGM and Bill of Entry or Lading for Wharfage collections. Accordingly, in this case, since the imported material is Coal, the Wharfage charges have to be fixed according to the Bill of Entry or IGM documents and not by the petitioner. Since those materials are directly taken by the Machines to the Thermal Power Plant and due to non-utilising of the man power, the petitioner is not responsible for the same. Further, the petitioner came to the knowledge of those offences only after his retirement. Moreover, with regard to shortfall of Wharfage charges, Ind-Bharat Power Company Ltd., filed W.P.(MD)No.

15409 of 2013 before this Court stating that the demand is arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice. The said Writ Petition was partly allowed and against which, the Ind-Bharat preferred W.A. (MD)No.1315 of 2014 and the same is pending. He also submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and prays for anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner.

4.The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the CBI Cases submitted that the shortage in collection of Wharfage charges was amounted to Rs.387.67 lakhs [approximately] between the years 2008 and 2013. When the same was brought to the knowledge of the petitioner and one U.Rajendran, they did not take any action on the shortage. They dishonestly failed to collect the said shortfall amount by colluding with the representatives of private firms in order to cheat V.O.C. Port Trust. He further submitted that the Investigating Agency had collected some incriminating documents to substantiate the allegation against the petitioner and other accused. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of this Criminal Original Petition.

5.Admittedly, the case has been registered by the respondent police based on the source of information. According to the Prevention of Corruption Act, there is no wrong in the manner of registration.

6.In this occasion, it is to be noted that knowing the Wharfage charges for the different materials is not a complicated issue. An ordinary prudent man can remember the orders passed by the Superior Officers. But, in this case, the occurrence was happened between the gap of three years. The allegation levelled by the prosecution is, the petitioner is having the conspiracy. In this occasion, it is undisputable thing that it is necessary to find out how many persons are involved in the conspiracy. If the contention of the petitioner that he has acted only according to the orders passed by the Superior Officer is true one, the interrogation is necessary to find out how many persons are involved in the alleged occurrence. The offence committed by the petitioner might be come under the purview of negligence. But, that can be decided only by way of interrogation. Due to which, if this application is allowed, the process of investigation will be prejudiced. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to

the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

sd/- 27/03/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI/ACB/CHENNAI, (CRIME NO.RC MA 1 2016A 0026) (ON THE FILE OF II ADDL SESSIONS COURT (CBI CASES) MADURAI 2 THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR CBI CASES, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. CC to M/S.M.S.SURESHKUMAR Advocate SR.No.4848 SMN2 JAM/28/03/2018/ CM-VR / SAR 2 / 3P-4C

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.2614 of 2018 Date :27/03/2018