Can’t force anyone to face agony of trial without material, says Madras HC

CHENNAI: Forcing a person to face trial and compelling her/him to undergo the agony and anxiety of its process for nothing is a transgression of the person’s rights, said the Madras High Court while setting aside a lower court’s order dismissing a land registrar's plea seeking to discharge him from a corruption case.

In the absence of materials to prove the case against an accused but insisting him to participate in the trial merely because the trial has commenced may violate his human rights, held Justice N Seshasayee.

The judge said this while allowing the revision petition moved by AP Raju, land registrar, Alandur, challenging the dismissal of his plea by the chief judicial magistrate, Kancheepuram. He had filed the discharge petition, but the magistrate dismissed it on February 22, 2024, stating that it could not be moved because the trial had already commenced.

Setting aside the magistrate’s order, the High Court said the trial court rushed to its conclusion that the materials available disclosed a triable issue, without specifically discussing what they were and how they were likely to prove the alleged offence.

On December 26, 2017, the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) booked the sub-registrar and a land purchaser, as the agency found some irregularity in transaction while registering a land.

According to the anti-corruption agency, sub-registrar Raju directed officials to register the sale deed of a property though there was a suspicion that the land could be a waterbody. This constituted a conspiracy leading to criminal misconduct by abusing his official position in registering the document, the DVAC alleged.

Raju moved a discharge petition before the Kancheepuram chief judicial magistrate, which was dismissed. Challenging this, he preferred this revision case.

His counsel submitted that it was he who earlier refused to register the land in 2005, as he had a suspicion whether the seller held the title of the property. He also had a doubt that the land was classified as poramboke. Hence, the matter was kept on hold for seven years without any further development.

Following this, the seller moved the Inspector General of Registration and sought to register the land. After receiving official correspondence from the IG of Registration, he ordered the registration of the land, said the petitioner. Hence, he contended, there was no demand for any bribe or advantage either to himself or to anyone else, which is the core ingredient of section 13 (2), 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.