Madras High Court Sets Aside Discharge Of Minister Durai Murugan In Disproportionate Assets Case, Calls Special Court's Finding Perverse

Justice P Velmurugan noted that the Special Court had simply allowed a discharge petition filed by the Minister without framing charges or without giving an opportunity to the Prosecution to put forward the case. The court also noted that the special judge had interpreted the facts in his own way and the reasons put forward by the Special Judge was perverse.

“In the present case, the Special Court without framing of charges and giving an opportunity to the prosecution to substantiate their charges, simply discharged the respondents/accused on the ground of technicality and also interpreted the facts in its own way, which warrants interference…Therefore, this Court finds that the reasons given by the Special Court to discharge the respondents/accused are perverse and hence the order of discharge passed by the Special Court is liable to be set aside,” the court said.

The court directed the Special Court to frame charges and proceed with the trial. Noting that the case was regarding the check period of 1996-2001, the court directed the Special Court to dispose the case within a period of 6 months from the date of order.

The case against Murugan was that while serving as the Minister for Public Works and Forest Department, between 1996 to 2001, he had acquired properties in his name and in his wife and son's names. The State investigated the matter and laid the chargesheet for offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. Pending the case, the parties filed petitions under Section 239 CrPC for their discharge, which was allowed.

Challenging this decision, the State argued that the decision was against the law. it was submitted that the Special Court had failed to consider the statements recorded under Sections 161 (3) CrPC and the documents collected during the investigation. The state argued that the Special Court had erred by wrongly weighing the reliability and sustainability of the prosecution evidence, and also erred in holding that the Investigating Officer did not consider the income tax returns.

The Minister, on the other hand, argued that the prosecution had wrongly clubbed the properties belonging to other accused with that of Murugan, which was unsustainable. It was argued that Murugan could not be held responsible for the properties of others which they had acquired from their independent income. It was submitted that Murugan had not acquired any property during the check period and the present case was a politically motivated one.

The court noted that whether the property was acquired by Murugan or whether it was independently acquired by the other accused was an issue that could be determined only upon appreciating the evidence during the trial. The court added that at the time of framing charge, the probative value of the materials could not be gone into, and the materials brought in by the prosecution had to be accepted as true. The court also added that at such time, the court could not elaborately examine the statements recorded during the investigation and form an opinion. The court thus opined that the special court's finding that the accused had accounted the disproportionate asset with known source of income was not sustainable in law.

The court also observed that once the materials produced by the prosecution reveal a prima facie case, the court has to frame charges and proceed further. The court added that the prosecution must be given an opportunity to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused in the final report and the court could not form an opinion itself.

Looking into the prima facie materials produced by the State, the court opined that there was sufficient materials to prosecute the accused especially in the absence of any satisfactory evidence from the accused. Thus, holding that the special court's finding was perverse, the court allowed the revision petitions and set aside the order.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. J. Ravindran Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. S. Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Sidharth Luthra Senior Advocate, Mr. P. Wilson Senior Advocate Assisted by Mr. Richardson Wilson

Case Title: State v. Durai Murugan and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 157

Case No: Crl. RC.Nos.265 to 269 of 2013