IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 607-612    OF 2009

[Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos. 6721-6726/2008]

K. SADANANDAM ... APPELLANT(S)

:VERSUS:

STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE ... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appellant  before  us  was  a Special  Officer  of  Peenalurpettai  Primary

Agricultural Co-operative Bank.  According to the appellant, the allegation made as

against the accused persons including the appellant, was that they, in conspiracy with

each other, misappropriated the amount belonging to the said Bank while purporting

to grant loan.  

Indisputably, the main accused, namely, M. Dhasarathiah committed suicide.

It also appears from the records that his wife had deposited the entire amount alleged

to have been misappropriated.  

-2-

The appellant  had filed an application under Section 482 of  the Code of

Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) before the High Court for quashing the charge-sheet

filed  by  the  respondent.  While  the  said  application  was  pending,  other  accused

persons filed applications for their discharge which were allowed on identical facts as

pertaining to the case of the appellant. In the aforementioned situation, the appellant

filed an application for discharge before the Trial Court. However, before filing of the

said application by the appellant, an order directing framing of charge(s) had already

been passed on 13.8.2004.  In that view of the matter, the learned Trial Judge refused

to entertain the discharge application filed by the appellant, which, in our opinion,

was correct as charges having already been framed the question of entertaining the

discharge application did not arise.  

The  appellant  filed  a  revision  application  thereagainst  before  the  High

Court. By reason of the impugned order the High Court has dismissed the revision

application filed by the appellant.    

-3-

However, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case,

we are of the opinion that as similar matters have been dealt  with in a particular

manner by the learned Trial Judge; for doing complete justice to the parties, we in

exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, hereby set

aside  the  order  dated  13.8.2004  framing  charge  against  the  appellant  and

consequently the impugned judgments and direct that the learned Trial Judge shall

proceed to dispose of the application for discharge filed by the appellant as if no order

framing charge had been passed by it.   

The  appeals  are  disposed  of  with  the  aforementioned  observation  and

direction.

We  make  it  clear  that  we  have  passed  this  order  in   exercise  of  our

extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and it shall

not be treated as a precedent.           

...........................J (S.B. SINHA)

...........................J   (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)    NEW DELHI, MARCH 30, 2009.