So Motu Crl.R.C.No.1419 of 2023 and Cr.M.P.Nos. 19168-19172 of 2023
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
1.On 10.08.2023, this Court initiated suo motu proceedings against the judgment and order dated 26.08.2023 passed by the Principal District Judge, Vellore, (Designated Special Court) passed in Special S.C 3 of 2022 acquitting respondents 2 & 3 herein from all charges. Notices were directed to be issued to the accused for the hearing on 07.09.2023. It is brought to the notice of this Court that as against this order, three special leave petitions (SLP’s) were filed before the Supreme Court. Two by the accused (i) Mr. Ponmudi and (ii) Mrs. P. Visalatchi and a third SLP by Mrs. N. Vasanthaleela, who held the office of the Principal District Judge, Vellore (Designated Special Court) and whose judgment forms the subject matter of this suo motu revision. The observations hereinafter relate to the accused/respondents 2 & 3 as a separate order is being passed in relation to the grievance of Mrs. N. Vasanthaleela.
- In the SLP’s filed at the instance of the accused, the following order came to be passed on 06.11.2023:
“The Single Judge is still seized of the proceedings in Criminal RC No
1419 of 2023 in which the impugned order has been passed on 10 August 2023. The order has merely issued notice to the Additional Public Prosecutor and the accused in the Suo Motu Criminal Revision.
- We are not inclined to entertain the Special Leave Petitions at the present stage since the petitioners would be at liberty to urge their grievances before the Single Judge when the proceedings are taken up.
- We clarify that the submissions, if any, of the accused shall be considered on their own merits on which we express no opinion whatsoever.
- The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed, subject to the above.
- Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.”
- In the meantime, on 07.09.2023, the State and the accused made a plea for recusal on the ground that some of the observations contained in the order dated 10.08.2023 were tainted by bias. By a detailed order dated 07.09.2023, the plea for recusal was rejected. On 09.10.2023, upon a change of Roster the matter came up before my learned brother G. Jayachandran,J and the matter was adjourned to 19.10.2023 on the ground that the accused had preferred SLP’s against the order dated 10.08.2023 initiating suo motu proceedings. As stated,supra, the SLP’s were dismissed by the Supreme Court by an order dated 06.11.2023.
4.Thereafter, the accused/respondents 2 and 3 herein filed 5 miscellaneous petitions with the following prayers:
| MP No | Filed by | Prayer |
| Cr MP 19169/23 | R2- Ponmudi | Direction to implead the Registrar General as a party respondent. |
| Cr M.P 19171/23 | R-3 Visalatchi | Direction to implead the Registrar General as a party respondent. |
| Cr.M.P 19168/23 | R2 – Ponmudi | Direction to the registry to serve the copies of the entire proceedings culminating in the transfer of S.C 3 of 2022 to the file of the PDJ, Vellore. |
| Cr.M.P 19172/23 | R3- Visalatchi | Direction to the registry to serve the copies of the entire proceedings culminating in the transfer of S.C 3 of 2022 to the file of the PDJ, Vellore. |
| Cr.M.P 19170/23 | R2 – Ponmudi | Direction to the registry to furnish a copy of the response filed by the judicial officer Mrs Vasanthaleela in respect of the observations made by this Court in its order dated 10.08.2023. |
5.When the matter came up on 05.12.2023, my learned predecessor Dr.G. Jayachandran, J allowed Crl.MP.Nos.19169 and 19171 of 2023 and the Registrar General was impleaded as the 4th respondent in this revision. In this view of the matter, no further orders are required to be passed in these applications.
- Pursuant to the directions issued on 05.12.2023 and 12.12.2023, the Registrar General has filed his response, and the same is taken on record. Copies of the same have already been made available to respondents 2 and 3.
- By a separate order of an even date, the learned judge also allowed Crl.MP.No. 19170 of 2023, and directed that a copy of the response submitted by the judicial officer should be made available to respondents 2 and 3 upon payment of usual charges. From paragraph 4 of the response of the Registrar General placed before this Court, it is seen that copies of the reply of the judicial officer were made available to the accused/respondents 2 and 3 on 11.12.2023. In this view of the matter, this application is closed as no further orders are required to be passed.
8.Coming to Crl.M.P.Nos.19168 and 19172 of 2023, these applications came up on
05.12.2023, and my learned predecessor had ordered notice to the newly impleaded 4th respondent the Registrar General. It is seen from paragraph 5(a) of the response of the Registrar General that complete copies of the entire proceedings have been furnished to the accused on 14.09.2023 in the form of a paper book under due acknowledgment. This has also been recorded by this Court on 14.09.2023.
9.The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused/respondents 2 and
3 submitted that the entire file containing the proceedings must be permitted to be scrutinized by the counsel on record. In the considered view of this Court, when the High Court on the administrative side through the Registrar General has taken a stand that the complete copies of the entire proceedings have been furnished to the accused. Such stand taken by the Registrar General cannot be doubted and the same has to be taken to be correct and it is not necessary to once again go through the formality of furnishing the original file. Hence, the request made by the learned Senior Counsel is hereby rejected. The submissions will now have to be made in light of the material that has already been made available to the accused. In view of the above, the prayers in these applications have become infructuous. Crl.MP.Nos. 19168 and 19172 are accordingly dismissed as infructuous.
10. This Court has gone through the response submitted by the Registrar General. In the light of the averments made therein, this Court must now ascertain whether the accused or the State had made any request for transfer on the administrative side. The respondents 2 and 3 are directed to file an affidavit stating whether they had made any request or had any role in the order of transfer passed on the administrative side of this Court. Similarly, the State shall also file an affidavit to the same effect indicating whether they had experienced any peculiar difficulties and had made any request or had any role in the order of transfer passed on the administrative side of this Court. Such affidavit shall be filed before the Registry of this Court on or before 30.01.2024, and a copy together with a memo of compliance shall be submitted to the Registrar General of this Court on or before
01.02.2024.
11.This Court is conscious of the fact that the hearing of these cases involving politicians ought to be given priority. A balance has, however, got to be struck to minimize the inconvenience of other litigants and to ensure that the hearing of other matters is not indefinitely delayed. Having regard to these aspects, this Court will now take up these revisions for final hearing at 3 pm on 19.02.2023, 20.02.2023, 21.02.2023 and 22.02.2023. This Court expects all the learned Senior Counsel/counsel to extend their fullest cooperation to complete the hearing within the aforesaid schedule.
12.If any of the respondent(s)/accused desire to assail the jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397/401 Cr. P.C to initiate suo motu revisions they will be at liberty to do so at the stage of final arguments.
- It will be open to the learned counsel for the respondents/accused to file their objections by way of a counter affidavit or written submissions together with case law, if any, by 05.02.2024.
- The learned Senior counsel/Counsel are requested to coordinate amongst themselves to avoid prolixity and overlapping of submissions.
15.List this case on 19.02.2024 at 3.00 pm for final hearing.
On 10.08.2023, this Court initiated suo motu proceedings against the order dated 26.08.2023 passed by the Principal District Judge, Vellore, (Designated Special Court) passed in Special SC.No.3 of 2022 acquitting respondents 2 and 3 herein from all charges. Notices were directed to be issued to the accused for the hearing on 07.09.2023. It is brought to the notice of this Court that as against this order, three special leave petitions (SLP’s) were filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Two by the accused (i) Mr. Ponmudi and (ii) Mrs. P. Visalatchi and a third SLP by Mrs.N.Vasanthaleela, who held the office of the Principal District Judge, Vellore (Designated Special Court) and whose judgment forms the subject matter of this suo motu revision.
2.The SLP filed by the judicial officer Mrs. N. Vasanthaleela came up before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court on 06.11.2023, and the following order came to be passed:
“Permission to file the Special Leave Petition is granted.
- We have heard Dr S Muralidhar, senior counsel appears on behalf of the petitioner, who held the office of the Principal District Judge, Vellore (Designated Special Court) and whose judgment forms the subject matter of the Suo Moto Criminal RC No 1419 of 2023 before the High Court.
- An order has been passed on 10 August 2023 by the Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras by which notice was directed to be issued to the accused.
- The grievance of the petitioner, who has since retired from service is that as a result of the observations which are contained in paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment, her career as a judicial officer would come under a cloud without any opportunity to her to present her perspective before the Single Judge.
- The proceedings are pending before Single Judge of the High Court. Hence, we are of the view that some modalities can be chalked out to assuage the grievance of the petitioner that certain observations have been made in the impugned order without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to explain her perspective. Since the petitioner was a trial Judge at the relevant time and has since demitted office, the directions which we propose to issue will duly be tailored so as to not place her under an undue burden to engage counsel and to appear before the High Court.
- We, accordingly, permit the petitioner to submit a response to the observations contained in paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment of the Single Judge to the Registrar General of the High Court of Madras. The Registrar General shall place the explanation which is tendered by the petitioner before the Single Judge who is hearing the Suo Moto Criminal RC No 1419 of 2023. The Single Judge would be at liberty to take an appropriate view in regard to the conduct of the petitioner after considering the explanation which is tendered by the petitioner.
- We also clarify that should the petitioner consider it advisable to engage counsel to appear before the Court, she would be at liberty to do so. The modalities which have been prescribed in the above terms are only to obviate hardship to the petitioner in engaging counsel and appearing before the Court.
- Since the proceedings are pending before the Single Judge, the observations against the petitioner by the High Court are of prima facie nature.
- Before concluding, we also record the statement of the senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the pleading which is contained in the last paragraph of Page ‘E’ of the synopsis stands withdrawn.
- Subject to the aforesaid, the Special Leave Petition is disposed of.”
3.Pursuant to the aforesaid directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the judicial officer has filed her response to the observations made by this Court in its order dated 10.08.2023, and the same has also been placed on record. The same will be taken into consideration by this Court at the time of final disposal.
4.In view of the directions contained in the order dated 06.11.2023, of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it would be open to the judicial officer to appear either in person or through a counsel and put forth her perspective of the matter, if so advised. In the event, that the judicial officer is desirous of making oral submissions through a counsel, she may place a request to that effect before the Registrar General on or before 31.01.2024. If such a request is made, this Court will hear her version in open Court on 23.02.2024 at 3.00 pm.
08.01.2024
kp
Internet: yes
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
Kp
So Motu Crl.R.C.No.1419 of 2023 and Cr.M.P.Nos. 19168-19172 of 2023
08.01.2024
So Motu Crl.R.C.No.1419 of 2023 and Cr.M.P.Nos. 19168-19172 of 2023
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
1.On 10.08.2023, this Court initiated suo motu proceedings against the judgment and order dated 26.08.2023 passed by the Principal District Judge, Vellore, (Designated Special Court) passed in Special S.C 3 of 2022 acquitting respondents 2 & 3 herein from all charges. Notices were directed to be issued to the accused for the hearing on 07.09.2023. It is brought to the notice of this Court that as against this order, three special leave petitions (SLP’s) were filed before the Supreme Court. Two by the accused (i) Mr. Ponmudi and (ii) Mrs. P. Visalatchi and a third SLP by Mrs. N. Vasanthaleela, who held the office of the Principal District Judge, Vellore (Designated Special Court) and whose judgment forms the subject matter of this suo motu revision. The observations hereinafter relate to the accused/respondents 2 & 3 as a separate order is being passed in relation to the grievance of Mrs. N. Vasanthaleela.
- In the SLP’s filed at the instance of the accused, the following order came to be passed on 06.11.2023:
“The Single Judge is still seized of the proceedings in Criminal RC No
1419 of 2023 in which the impugned order has been passed on 10 August 2023. The order has merely issued notice to the Additional Public Prosecutor and the accused in the Suo Motu Criminal Revision.
- We are not inclined to entertain the Special Leave Petitions at the present stage since the petitioners would be at liberty to urge their grievances before the Single Judge when the proceedings are taken up.
- We clarify that the submissions, if any, of the accused shall be considered on their own merits on which we express no opinion whatsoever.
- The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed, subject to the above.
- Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.”
- In the meantime, on 07.09.2023, the State and the accused made a plea for recusal on the ground that some of the observations contained in the order dated 10.08.2023 were tainted by bias. By a detailed order dated 07.09.2023, the plea for recusal was rejected. On 09.10.2023, upon a change of Roster the matter came up before my learned brother G. Jayachandran,J and the matter was adjourned to 19.10.2023 on the ground that the accused had preferred SLP’s against the order dated 10.08.2023 initiating suo motu proceedings. As stated,supra, the SLP’s were dismissed by the Supreme Court by an order dated 06.11.2023.
4.Thereafter, the accused/respondents 2 and 3 herein filed 5 miscellaneous petitions with the following prayers:
| MP No | Filed by | Prayer |
| Cr MP 19169/23 | R2- Ponmudi | Direction to implead the Registrar General as a party respondent. |
| Cr M.P 19171/23 | R-3 Visalatchi | Direction to implead the Registrar General as a party respondent. |
| Cr.M.P 19168/23 | R2 – Ponmudi | Direction to the registry to serve the copies of the entire proceedings culminating in the transfer of S.C 3 of 2022 to the file of the PDJ, Vellore. |
| Cr.M.P 19172/23 | R3- Visalatchi | Direction to the registry to serve the copies of the entire proceedings culminating in the transfer of S.C 3 of 2022 to the file of the PDJ, Vellore. |
| Cr.M.P 19170/23 | R2 – Ponmudi | Direction to the registry to furnish a copy of the response filed by the judicial officer Mrs Vasanthaleela in respect of the observations made by this Court in its order dated 10.08.2023. |
5.When the matter came up on 05.12.2023, my learned predecessor Dr.G. Jayachandran, J allowed Crl.MP.Nos.19169 and 19171 of 2023 and the Registrar General was impleaded as the 4th respondent in this revision. In this view of the matter, no further orders are required to be passed in these applications.
- Pursuant to the directions issued on 05.12.2023 and 12.12.2023, the Registrar General has filed his response, and the same is taken on record. Copies of the same have already been made available to respondents 2 and 3.
- By a separate order of an even date, the learned judge also allowed Crl.MP.No. 19170 of 2023, and directed that a copy of the response submitted by the judicial officer should be made available to respondents 2 and 3 upon payment of usual charges. From paragraph 4 of the response of the Registrar General placed before this Court, it is seen that copies of the reply of the judicial officer were made available to the accused/respondents 2 and 3 on 11.12.2023. In this view of the matter, this application is closed as no further orders are required to be passed.
8.Coming to Crl.M.P.Nos.19168 and 19172 of 2023, these applications came up on
05.12.2023, and my learned predecessor had ordered notice to the newly impleaded 4th respondent the Registrar General. It is seen from paragraph 5(a) of the response of the Registrar General that complete copies of the entire proceedings have been furnished to the accused on 14.09.2023 in the form of a paper book under due acknowledgment. This has also been recorded by this Court on 14.09.2023.
9.The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused/respondents 2 and
3 submitted that the entire file containing the proceedings must be permitted to be scrutinized by the counsel on record. In the considered view of this Court, when the High Court on the administrative side through the Registrar General has taken a stand that the complete copies of the entire proceedings have been furnished to the accused. Such stand taken by the Registrar General cannot be doubted and the same has to be taken to be correct and it is not necessary to once again go through the formality of furnishing the original file. Hence, the request made by the learned Senior Counsel is hereby rejected. The submissions will now have to be made in light of the material that has already been made available to the accused. In view of the above, the prayers in these applications have become infructuous. Crl.MP.Nos. 19168 and 19172 are accordingly dismissed as infructuous.
10. This Court has gone through the response submitted by the Registrar General. In the light of the averments made therein, this Court must now ascertain whether the accused or the State had made any request for transfer on the administrative side. The respondents 2 and 3 are directed to file an affidavit stating whether they had made any request or had any role in the order of transfer passed on the administrative side of this Court. Similarly, the State shall also file an affidavit to the same effect indicating whether they had experienced any peculiar difficulties and had made any request or had any role in the order of transfer passed on the administrative side of this Court. Such affidavit shall be filed before the Registry of this Court on or before 30.01.2024, and a copy together with a memo of compliance shall be submitted to the Registrar General of this Court on or before
01.02.2024.
11.This Court is conscious of the fact that the hearing of these cases involving politicians ought to be given priority. A balance has, however, got to be struck to minimize the inconvenience of other litigants and to ensure that the hearing of other matters is not indefinitely delayed. Having regard to these aspects, this Court will now take up these revisions for final hearing at 3 pm on 19.02.2023, 20.02.2023, 21.02.2023 and 22.02.2023. This Court expects all the learned Senior Counsel/counsel to extend their fullest cooperation to complete the hearing within the aforesaid schedule.
12.If any of the respondent(s)/accused desire to assail the jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397/401 Cr. P.C to initiate suo motu revisions they will be at liberty to do so at the stage of final arguments.
- It will be open to the learned counsel for the respondents/accused to file their objections by way of a counter affidavit or written submissions together with case law, if any, by 05.02.2024.
- The learned Senior counsel/Counsel are requested to coordinate amongst themselves to avoid prolixity and overlapping of submissions.
15.List this case on 19.02.2024 at 3.00 pm for final hearing.
On 10.08.2023, this Court initiated suo motu proceedings against the order dated 26.08.2023 passed by the Principal District Judge, Vellore, (Designated Special Court) passed in Special SC.No.3 of 2022 acquitting respondents 2 and 3 herein from all charges. Notices were directed to be issued to the accused for the hearing on 07.09.2023. It is brought to the notice of this Court that as against this order, three special leave petitions (SLP’s) were filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Two by the accused (i) Mr. Ponmudi and (ii) Mrs. P. Visalatchi and a third SLP by Mrs.N.Vasanthaleela, who held the office of the Principal District Judge, Vellore (Designated Special Court) and whose judgment forms the subject matter of this suo motu revision.
2.The SLP filed by the judicial officer Mrs. N. Vasanthaleela came up before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court on 06.11.2023, and the following order came to be passed:
“Permission to file the Special Leave Petition is granted.
- We have heard Dr S Muralidhar, senior counsel appears on behalf of the petitioner, who held the office of the Principal District Judge, Vellore (Designated Special Court) and whose judgment forms the subject matter of the Suo Moto Criminal RC No 1419 of 2023 before the High Court.
- An order has been passed on 10 August 2023 by the Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras by which notice was directed to be issued to the accused.
- The grievance of the petitioner, who has since retired from service is that as a result of the observations which are contained in paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment, her career as a judicial officer would come under a cloud without any opportunity to her to present her perspective before the Single Judge.
- The proceedings are pending before Single Judge of the High Court. Hence, we are of the view that some modalities can be chalked out to assuage the grievance of the petitioner that certain observations have been made in the impugned order without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to explain her perspective. Since the petitioner was a trial Judge at the relevant time and has since demitted office, the directions which we propose to issue will duly be tailored so as to not place her under an undue burden to engage counsel and to appear before the High Court.
- We, accordingly, permit the petitioner to submit a response to the observations contained in paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment of the Single Judge to the Registrar General of the High Court of Madras. The Registrar General shall place the explanation which is tendered by the petitioner before the Single Judge who is hearing the Suo Moto Criminal RC No 1419 of 2023. The Single Judge would be at liberty to take an appropriate view in regard to the conduct of the petitioner after considering the explanation which is tendered by the petitioner.
- We also clarify that should the petitioner consider it advisable to engage counsel to appear before the Court, she would be at liberty to do so. The modalities which have been prescribed in the above terms are only to obviate hardship to the petitioner in engaging counsel and appearing before the Court.
- Since the proceedings are pending before the Single Judge, the observations against the petitioner by the High Court are of prima facie nature.
- Before concluding, we also record the statement of the senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the pleading which is contained in the last paragraph of Page ‘E’ of the synopsis stands withdrawn.
- Subject to the aforesaid, the Special Leave Petition is disposed of.”
3.Pursuant to the aforesaid directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the judicial officer has filed her response to the observations made by this Court in its order dated 10.08.2023, and the same has also been placed on record. The same will be taken into consideration by this Court at the time of final disposal.
4.In view of the directions contained in the order dated 06.11.2023, of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it would be open to the judicial officer to appear either in person or through a counsel and put forth her perspective of the matter, if so advised. In the event, that the judicial officer is desirous of making oral submissions through a counsel, she may place a request to that effect before the Registrar General on or before 31.01.2024. If such a request is made, this Court will hear her version in open Court on 23.02.2024 at 3.00 pm.
08.01.2024
kp
Internet: yes
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
Kp
So Motu Crl.R.C.No.1419 of 2023 and Cr.M.P.Nos. 19168-19172 of 2023
08.01.2024
