Prosecuting case without valid sanction is waste of public money: I Periyasamy in MHC

CHENNAI: Prosecuting a case without a valid sanction is a waste of public money, said senior counsel Ranjith Kumar before the Madras High Court while defending Minister I Periyasamy's discharge from the alleged irregular allotment of plot in Tamil Nadu Housing Board (TNHB).

The final hearing of the suo motu criminal revision initiated against Periyasamy listed before Justice N Anand Venkatesh.

Senior counsel Ranjith Kumar appeared for the minister and submitted that the sanction against his client given by the then speaker of the assembly, P Dhanabal is invalid of competency, as the alleged accusation against his client occurred when he was a Minister in the State, hence the governor is the competent authority to grant the sanction.

Further, the counsel cited the famous verdict of the Supreme Court in Nanjappa vs the State of Karnataka, 2015, and submitted that the trial based on invalid sanction is non-est in the eyes of the law. Since the sanction is invalid the court became incompetent to proceed with the matter, submitted the counsel.

The Speaker misconstrued his power and sanctioned against his client, the prosecution followed by the invalid sanction is defect in law, said the counsel.

The Minister is charged with nothing more than a conspiracy, said the counsel and submitted that it is a case of regime change political vendetta. Since, the prosecution is a defect, his client moved a second petition to discharge him from the case.

The judge intervened and wondered such a petition can be filed after filing the chargesheet. In criminal law the discharge petition can be filed even after the chargesheets are filed, replied the counsel. No violation is on the part of the minister, he followed the transaction of business rules while allotting the plot, said the counsel.

Further, the counsel submitted that the special court applied mind while acquitting Periyasamy from the case.

After the submission, the judge posted the matter to Tuesday for the Advocate General's submission.

In 2012, the DVAC booked a case against Minister I Periyasamy. The investigating agency's prosecution was that during the DMK regime between 2007 - 2011, Periyasamy held the ministry of housing department.

During his ministership, Periyasamy illegally obtained a HIG (High Income Group) plot in the Mogappair Eri Scheme of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to C Ganesan, an inspector in SBCID, alleged the DVAC. It is alleged that Ganesan had given an undated application to the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu M Karunanidhi stating that his family was residing in a private house paying exorbitant rent suppressing the fact that he was actually residing in the TNHB Housing quarters. However after the regime changed in 2011, the DVAC booked a corruption case against Ganesan and Periyasamy, the investing agency filed a charge sheet against them in a special court.

The various discharge petitions filed by Periyasamy were denied by the special court and the case was kept alive.

In 2021, after the power changed in the State, Periyasamy gained ministership again.

The Special court for MP/MLA cases ordered to discharge Periyasamy from the case.