NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear a plea challenging the clubbing of four separate chargesheets - pertaining to corrupt practices in the appointments of assistant engineers, junior tradesmen, conductors and drivers - with an existing case related to the appointment of junior engineers. All these cases are part of the cash-for-jobs scam , in which Tamil Nadu minister V Senthil Balaji is one of the main accused.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan posted the case, filed by the organisation Anti Corruption Movement, to May 9 and asked the petitioner to hand over a copy of the petition to the state govt's counsel. The organisation moved the apex court through it's lawyer Pranab Sachdeva alleging that the decision of clubbing was wrong and that it would also delay the trial. The decision to club chargesheets was taken by the trial court and the Madras HC also approved it.
The petitioner organisation said, the first supplementary chargesheet was with respect to alleged corrupt practices in the appointment of assistant engineers in state transport corporations when Balaji was the transport minister in the AIADMK govt. That chargesheet had listed out 74 individuals as accused and 112 witnesses. The second chargesheet related to the appointment of junior tradesmen had also listed out many accused and 287 witnesses. The third chargesheet pertaining to the appointment of bus conductors had 928 accused and 151 witnesses. The fourth chargesheet filed in connection with alleged irregularities in the appointment of bus drivers had 920 accused and many witnesses.
If all the four chargesheets were clubbed, the number of accused would increase to 2,256 and the number of witnesses would shoot up to over 668, the organisation complained. "If these many accused and witnesses have to be examined as well as cross-examined, then it would take 1,500 years for the trial to be completed. Therefore, it is essential that the four supplementary charge sheets are not clubbed together," the petitioner submitted.
"The impugned orders, directing clubbing of four separate supplementary chargesheets related to four different posts, have been passed contravening the mandate of Section 218 to 224 of CrPC. The orders have been passed without appreciating that the accused and the prosecution are acting in collusion," the petition said.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan posted the case, filed by the organisation Anti Corruption Movement, to May 9 and asked the petitioner to hand over a copy of the petition to the state govt's counsel. The organisation moved the apex court through it's lawyer Pranab Sachdeva alleging that the decision of clubbing was wrong and that it would also delay the trial. The decision to club chargesheets was taken by the trial court and the Madras HC also approved it.
The petitioner organisation said, the first supplementary chargesheet was with respect to alleged corrupt practices in the appointment of assistant engineers in state transport corporations when Balaji was the transport minister in the AIADMK govt. That chargesheet had listed out 74 individuals as accused and 112 witnesses. The second chargesheet related to the appointment of junior tradesmen had also listed out many accused and 287 witnesses. The third chargesheet pertaining to the appointment of bus conductors had 928 accused and 151 witnesses. The fourth chargesheet filed in connection with alleged irregularities in the appointment of bus drivers had 920 accused and many witnesses.
If all the four chargesheets were clubbed, the number of accused would increase to 2,256 and the number of witnesses would shoot up to over 668, the organisation complained. "If these many accused and witnesses have to be examined as well as cross-examined, then it would take 1,500 years for the trial to be completed. Therefore, it is essential that the four supplementary charge sheets are not clubbed together," the petitioner submitted.
"The impugned orders, directing clubbing of four separate supplementary chargesheets related to four different posts, have been passed contravening the mandate of Section 218 to 224 of CrPC. The orders have been passed without appreciating that the accused and the prosecution are acting in collusion," the petition said.
You may also like
Mourners furious as people take 'ghoulish' selfies with Pope's body
CBB fans work out JoJo Siwa's partner's hidden message as blunt letter read out
SC approves finalisation of UGC Regulations 2025
Richard Osman fans fume over Netflix's The Thursday Murder Club casting
Supreme Court: Why no pension for lady who raised stepson?
