It has been over a year since a judicial magistrate at Melur acquitted granite barons P.R. Palanichamy and his son P. Suresh Kumar of PRP Granites from two criminal cases. Yet, till date, the Madurai Collector has not been able to obtain even the leave of the Madras High Court Bench here to prefer appeals against their acquittal, the reason being a mistake committed by his office “due to oversight.”
Instead of filing the appeals in the name of District Collector, Madurai, they had been filed by the State, represented by the public prosecutor, and this has become a bone of contention for the granite barons, to vehemently oppose grant of leave under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), since the private complaints before the magistrate were filed in July 2013 by then Collector Anshul Mishra and not the State.
Issue in litigant’s name
Conceding that it was a mistake to have filed the appeal last year in the name of the State, incumbent Collector K. Veera Raghava Rao has now filed a petition seeking permission of the High Court to amend the cause title (the portion containing the names of the litigants) of the appeals and accept the Collector as the appellant.
When the matter came up for hearing before Justice V. Bharathidasan on Friday, advocate C. Arulvadivel alias Sekar, representing the granite barons, took strong exception to the amendment petition as well by raising a host of legal objections. He contested the claim of a mistake having been committed due to oversight in the cause title. A counter affidavit was also filed on behalf of the granite barons, opposing the plea for amendment, stating that even now, the Collector has urged the court to amend the cause title only in the appeal, and not in the petition seeking the leave of the court to file the appeal. The counter also claimed that the leave petition would have been filed under Section 378 (4) and not (3) of CrPC, if the supposed mistakewas due to oversight.
After perusing the counter affidavit, the judge adjourned further hearing to August 11. The two criminal cases have had a chequered history, with Justice P.N. Prakash of the High Court on March 24 last “smelling rat” in the way the then judicial magistrate, K.V. Mahendra Boopathy, was dealing with them, and insisting on taking cognisance of only lesser offencesto avoid the cases being referred to a Sessions Court. The judge also recommended either contempt proceedings or disciplinary action against the magistrate. Irked over this, Mr. Boopathy, on March 29, 2016, blamed the prosecution for having brought disrepute to him by suppressing crucial facts before the court. He also acquitted the granite baronsandordered registration of cases against Mr. Mishra and two special public prosecutors.
Though he was suspended last April, the appeals preferred against his judgments in the two cases remain unnumbered till date.
