“Same Conspiracy, Same Crime”: Madras HC Upholds Clubbing of 2200-Accused Bribery Cases in Cash-for-Jobs Scam Involving Tamil Nadu Minister
Isabella Mariam
In a significant judgement, the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Single Bench of Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, upheld the legality of the trial court's decision to club multiple supplementary charge sheets into a single trial in a high-profile corruption case concerning fraudulent job appointments in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. The petitions seeking to quash the clubbing orders were dismissed on 28 March 2025.
The petitions under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, were filed by the Anti-Corruption Movement, represented by its General Secretary. The petitioner challenged docket orders dated 18.09.2024 and 01.10.2024 passed by the Additional Special Court No.1 designated for MPs and MLAs in Chennai in Crl.M.P.Nos.22311, 24674, 24689, and 23733 of 2023 in Crime No.441 of 2015.
The petitions arose from a large-scale recruitment scam allegedly involving V. Senthil Balaji, the sitting Minister of Electricity, Prohibition and Excise, Tamil Nadu, who was the first accused in the case. The scam pertained to the collection of bribes from job aspirants for positions such as Assistant Engineers, Junior Engineers, Conductors, Drivers, and Junior Tradesmen in 2014-2015. The investigation revealed that money was collected through middlemen and handed over to the first accused. When the promised jobs did not materialize, cheques issued for refunding the money bounced, prompting multiple complaints.
Originally registered as Crime No.441 of 2015, the matter resulted in separate trials: C.C.No.19 of 2020, C.C.No.22 of 2021, and C.C.No.25 of 2021. The proceedings in C.C.No.25 of 2021 were quashed by the High Court in 2021, which led to appeals by the petitioner and others before the Supreme Court. In Crl.A.Nos.1514 to 1516 of 2022, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals on 08.09.2022 and directed further investigation due to the omission of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act in the initial report.
The petitioner Association, established to combat corruption, was allowed to implead in both the High Court and Supreme Court proceedings. The Supreme Court recognized the petitioner's locus standi, stating, "the public, who are recipients of these services, also become victims, though indirectly... Hence, to say that the appellants have no locus standi, is to deny the existence of what is obvious."
Following the Supreme Court’s direction, further investigations were conducted, and supplementary charge sheets were filed between 05.09.2023 and 25.09.2023 for various posts, increasing the number of accused to over 2200. A victim approached the Supreme Court for expedited trial and appointment of a special investigation team. Consequently, the Tamil Nadu government granted sanction for prosecution on 23.08.2024.
The petitioner contended that clubbing the supplementary charge sheets violated Sections 219 to 224 of the Cr.P.C. and undermined the procedural mandate to conduct separate trials for distinct offences. Relying on Nasib Singh v. State of Punjab (2022) 2 SCC 89, it was argued that joint trials should not cause prejudice to the accused or judicial delay.
It was also argued that the offences related to separate victims and posts and that C.C.No.24 of 2021 had already commenced trial. The clubbing would delay proceedings by increasing the accused from 47 to 2209 and witnesses from 112 to 668.
On the other hand, the impleaded second respondent argued that all offences stemmed from the same transaction—the recruitment scam in MTC—and therefore constituted a common conspiracy. Citing Banwarilal Jhunjhunwala v. Union of India (1963 Supp (2) SCR 338), it was submitted that "two offences would be distinct if they be not in any way inter-related" and that "if there is such a connection, one action is not 'distinct' from other actions".
The respondent also cited Section 220(1) Cr.P.C., which allows joint trials for offences forming the same transaction. Supplementary charge sheets under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. were said to arise from the same crime and conspiracy.
The Court recorded that the complaints concerned a single recruitment scam, and all offences arose out of the same conspiracy and cause of action. The Court noted, "separate trials itself doesn't arise, since it cannot be construed as distinct offences".
Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan stated that, "for all the supplementary charge sheets same witnesses and documents were examined to prove the case of the prosecution", and that separate trials would require repetition of evidence, thereby wasting judicial time and possibly violating Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court referred to C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2010) 9 SCC 567, stating, "merely because two separate complaints had been lodged, did not mean that they could not be clubbed together and one charge-sheet could not be filed."
It was recorded that as of the judgment date, 423 accused had appeared, and the trial court had scheduled appearances for the remaining accused on different dates. The total accused had reduced to 2202 after eliminating duplicates.
Dismissing the petitions, the Court stated:
"This Court finds no ground to interfere with the docket orders dated 18.09.2024 & 01.10.2024 passed by the trial Court and all the petitions are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, all the Criminal Original Petitions stand dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. N. Subramaniyan
For the Respondents: Mr. K.M.D. Muhilan, Government Advocate (Crl. Side), Mr. V. Karthik, Senior Counsel
Case Title: Anti-Corruption Movement v. State rep. by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, CCB, Chennai and Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: MHC:831
Case Numbers: Crl.O.P.Nos.4368, 4579, 4590 & 4600 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.Nos.2774, 2910, 2914 & 2919 of 2025
Bench: Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
[Read/Download order]
