Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras
Order Date: 31 July 2026
Case Overview
- Petitioners/Accused Nos.1‑4 (P. Murugesa Boopathi, Jansirani, Dinesh Kumar, Krithika) filed a criminal revision under CrPC s.397/401 and B.N.S.S. s.438 challenging the order dated 15 Nov 2024 passed by the Special Judge, Special Court for cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.479 of 2023.
- They were charged under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 109 IPC for allegedly possessing assets worth Rs 68,20,065 (145.84 % disproportionate) during the check period 1 Jun 2006‑31 May 2009.
- The prosecution’s sanction to prosecute the first accused was obtained from the Vice‑Chancellor of Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU) on 7 Oct 2022, based on a resolution of the Board of Management, while the accused held the post of Special Personal Assistant to the Minister for Agriculture (appointed by the Government of Tamil Nadu).
- Petitioners contended that the Board of Management lacked statutory competence to grant sanction; the competent authority should be the Chancellor of TNAU or the Government of Tamil Nadu. They also argued lack of sanction under Section 197 CrPC for the IPC charge and improper inclusion of family members’ assets.
Final Outcome
- The Court held that the sanction order dated 7 Oct 2022 is “non est” because the Board of Management is not the competent authority under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Act, 1971, and the Government of Tamil Nadu, not the Vice‑Chancellor, should have granted sanction.
- The absence of sanction under Section 197 CrPC for the IPC charge was also a jurisdictional defect.
- Consequently, the order of the Special Judge dated 15 Nov 2024 is set aside, the criminal revision is allowed, and the petitioners are discharged from all charges. No costs are awarded and the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Topics: Corruption, Sanction Validity