CB-CID directed to file case against transport operator

By Our Special Correspondent

CHENNAI, JULY 10. The Madras High Court today directed the CB-CID to register a criminal case against M/s Kartheeban Tourist Bus Services and investigate into a complaint that the firm had reportedly purchased a land belonging to TANSI Forgings at a price below the guideline value.

Mr. Justice Akbar Basha Khadiri gave the direction while dismissing two petitions from Ms. Sasikala, a close friend of Ms. Jayalalitha, seeking to prosecute M/s Kartheeban Tourist Bus Services (KTBS).

The Judge said he did not find any merit in the arguments of Ms. Sasikala that she was equally placed person with M/s KTBS, or that all further proceedings should be stayed in the TANSI land deal cases against her, till investigation was completed against KTBS.

However the Judge said, ``Exercising my inherent powers in the jurisdiction of supervisory nature to secure the ends of justice, I direct the Investigation Officer to register a case against KTBS and investigate the same''.

Ms. Sasikala had contended that four TANSI units were sold in public auction. M/s Jaya Publications, M/s Sasi Enterprises and M/s R. R. Industries bought three of the properties at the rate of Rs. 1,350, Rs. 2,070 and Rs. 1,525 per sq.m, against a guideline value of Rs. 3,282. The firm KTBS bought the fourth TANSI land in public auction at Rs. 2,100 a sq.m. But no case had been registered against M/s KTBS, as according to the petition, he was a DMK working committee member.

The non-institution of criminal proceedings against the fourth purchaser was not based on any intelligible reason, as all the purchases were to be treated in the same manner. The prosecution had to bring the connected accused also to trial.

It was her case that if the purchase of TANSI Forgings by KTBS was not an offence, then the other three purchases might not also constitute an offence. Ms. Sasikala's petition sought to adjourn the trial against her till the prosecution decided to commence and conclude the trial against M/s KTBS or to drop prosecution against her.

As the Special Court dismissed her pleas, she filed the petitions before the High Court. The Judge said the complaint was about non-investigation of a case. Ms. Saskiala, the Judge said, was not a party to the fourth transaction, nor a partner in KTBS. She had no locus standi to contend that there should be investigation regarding the fourth purchaser also. She was not equally placed person along with KTBS because she had nothing to do with the latter. The sales were also not common, but separate. That being the case, equality claimed by Ms. Sasikala did not seem to be one given under Art. 14 of the Constitution, the Judge added.

The stautory provision itself laid down that no court should stall the proceedings under P.C Act on any ground except failure of justice. Because the other person was not prosecuted, that did not mean there was failure of justice.

While dismissing the petitions, the Judge observed that when it was brought to the notice of the investigating officer that the fourth purchase was also far below the guideline value, which fact disclosed a cognisable offence, the investigating officer ought to have registered a separate case and investigated the matter. It appears that the I.O had taken preliminary steps to investigate the matter, the Judge said and gave the direction.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Southern States
Previous : Plea to hike NRI quota in self-financing colleges
Next     : Derailment derails EMU services