Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 28.08.2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Dr. M. Ramanathan (former Vice‑Chancellor) and Dr. M. Rathinasabapathi (former Registrar) of Annamalai University.
  • Respondent: State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Investigation Cell‑I, Vigilance & Anti‑Corruption, Chennai.
  • Nature of proceedings: Criminal Revision (Crl.RC Nos.584‑587, 1462‑1465 of 2025) challenging the dismissal of discharge petitions filed in Special C.C. Nos.3‑6 of 2019 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore.
  • Allegations by prosecution: The accused, while holding the offices of Vice‑Chancellor and Registrar, allegedly violated the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 and the Government Order G.O. Ms.No.140 (Public Works Department, 23.03.2000) by awarding several construction contracts to M/s. Chettinad Builders Pvt. Ltd. at amounts exceeding the statutory excess limits, resulting in alleged losses to the University exchequer.
  • Contract details & alleged losses (selected examples):
  • New men’s hostel (Rs 2,33,00,000 estimate; actual cost Rs 2,64,76,000; loss Rs 20,11,000).
  • 2nd floor over DDE Administrative Building (Rs 46,75,796 estimate; actual cost Rs 67,07,000; loss Rs 17,97,415).
  • Canteen block (Rs 38,85,000 estimate; actual cost Rs 52,26,000; loss Rs 11,46,750).
  • Additional toilets at KRM Hostel (Rs 29,04,000 estimate; actual cost Rs 55,16,900; loss Rs 23,22,500).
  • Laboratories, mechanical engineering (Rs 38,00,000 estimate; actual cost Rs 43,97,000; loss Rs 4,07,000).
  • Transgenic facility, Botany (Rs 1,48,00,000 estimate; actual cost Rs 2,07,52,000; loss Rs 52,12,000).
  • Hostel for PG students (Rs 3,28,00,000 estimate; actual cost Rs 3,85,71,581; loss Rs 41,31,581).
  • Numerous other projects (total alleged excess amount Rs 72,77,665).
  • Statutory provisions invoked: IPC Section 409 (criminal breach of trust), PC Act Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c), IPC Sections 120B, 420, and the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 (Sections 3,4,8‑12) together with the 2000 Rules.
  • Key procedural contentions:

1. No sanction was obtained under Section 197 CrPC for the IPC 409 charge nor under Section 19 of the amended Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which is mandatory when cognizance is taken after the amendment (effective 26‑07‑2018).

2. The FIR was registered in 2013 (pre‑amendment); the final report and cognizance by the trial court occurred only after the amendment, making the sanction requirement applicable.

3. The prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust: entrustment of property, dishonest misappropriation, and wrongful gain.

4. The contractor, Chettinad Builders, was not named as an accused in the charge‑sheet; the investigation indicated no material evidence of illegal pecuniary gain.

5. The award of contracts was approved by the University’s Building Committee and Syndicate, with participation of a State Government engineer, indicating the accused did not act unilaterally.

6. The alleged procedural violations of the Transparency in Tenders Act do not, by themselves, constitute a criminal offence absent proof of dishonest intent.

  • Counsel submissions:
  • Petitioners argued lack of sanction, absence of dishonest intent, and that any excess was due to legitimate variations in scope, material costs, or necessary additional works.
  • Respondent argued that the excess payments caused wrongful loss to the public exchequer, satisfying the dishonesty element, and that sanction was not required for offences under IPC 409.
  • The Court examined precedents on retrospective effect of the 2018 amendment, the scope of Section 197 CrPC, and the necessity of proving entrustment and dishonest conversion.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court held that the trial court’s cognizance was vitiated for lack of the requisite sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 197 CrPC.
  • It further concluded that the prosecution had not proved the essential ingredients of offences under IPC 409 and PC Act 13(2).
  • Consequently, the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore dismissing the discharge petitions were set aside.
  • All the Criminal Revision Cases (Crl.RC Nos.584‑587, 1462‑1465 of 2025) were allowed, the petitioners were discharged from all charges, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Topics: Criminal Law, Public Procurement