G.K.Balasubramaniyam v. The State Represented by the Inspector of Police
CRL RC/1381/2026 · 2026-07-06
G K Ilanthiraiyan
Transfer Petitionbody2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 46314 (MAD) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 46314 (MAD) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
CRL RC No. 1381 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN CRL RC No. 1381 of 2026 and Crl.M.P.Nos.11633 & 11634 of 2026 G.K.Balasubramaniyam S/o.P.Kathaperumal, No.307, C-2 Block, Akshaya Republic, Kundrathur Main Road, Kovur, Kanchipuram - 600 128. ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Represented by the Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Kanchipuram. Crime no.01/AC/2024/KM. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 & 442 of BNSS praying to call for the entire records and set aside the order dated 04.06.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2376 of 2025 in Spl.C.C.No.30 of 2025 made by the Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kanchipuram. For Petitioner(s): Mr. M.Vimal Bobby Crimson For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar Counsel for Government https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 1381 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 6
ORDER This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the order dated 04.06.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2376 of 2025 in Spl.C.C.No.30 of 2025 by the Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kanchipuram. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant submitted three applications along with necessary documents before the Kundrathur Municipal Officer on 13.10.2023 to regularize three unapproved plots in his name and in the names of his relatives. On 30.12.2023, the complainant enquired about the status of the applications with L.W.6, who is a Junior Assistant in the same office. L.W.6 informed him that certain formalities had to be followed and advised him to meet the third accused (A3). When the complainant met A3, he was directed to process the application and asked to return in the first week of January 2024. On 05.01.2024, when the complainant met L.W.6, the latter took him to the petitioner (A1). The petitioner, in turn, is alleged to have insisted on certain formalities and demanded a sum of ₹12,000/- per application, totaling ₹36,000/- for the three applications. After registration of the FIR, a trap was laid, and all the accused persons were caught red-handed. Upon completion of the investigation and while charges were pending, the petitioner ( A1) filed a discharge petition seeking exoneration from the charges under Section 120-B of the IPC and Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 1381 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 6
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, even according to the case of the prosecution, the plots of the complainant and his relatives had already been processed and approved for registration by the accused persons prior to the alleged demand. Therefore, no occasion or circumstance arose for the petitioner to make any such demand. It was further submitted that the demand, if any, was made by A3 and not by the petitioner. Hence, the learned counsel prayed for the quashing of the said proceedings. 4. It was further argued that a perusal of the entire case records and the statements of witnesses reveals that there was no demand made by the petitioner, nor was any bribe money received by him.
The complainant, in order to fabricate a false complaint, falsely alleged that he went to the ground floor to meet A3 only upon the directions of the petitioner, and subsequently handed over the tainted money to A2 on A3's instructions. It was contended that the statements of L.W.6, A2, and A3 categorically show that the first accused did not make any demand, as the applications for regularization of the three unapproved plots had already been processed and forwarded by the petitioner on 28.12.2023 itself. During the trap proceedings, the Trap Laying Officer (TLO) seized the complainant’s file only from L.W.6, and the complaint itself was not directed against the first accused. Furthermore, the tainted money was actually found in the possession of L.W.8, who is not a subordinate of the first accused, and there is absolutely no material to suggest that A1 ever instructed or https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 1381 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 6
directed L.W.8 to receive the alleged bribe amount. Therefore, it was submitted that there is absolutely no material on record to attract the charges against the petitioner.
5. However, a perusal of the records and consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides reveal that the petitioner is arrayed as the first accused. According to the prosecution's case, the petitioner demanded ₹36,000/- to process the three applications for regularization of the plots. Consequently, the de facto complainant lodged a complaint, and after registration of the FIR, a trap was organized by the Trap Laying Officer. A perusal of the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. from L.W.6 clearly indicates that a distinct demand was made by the petitioner, who also negotiated directly with the complainant. Apart from this, there are ample materials linking the petitioner to the offences, attracting charges under Section 120-B of the IPC and Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. There is prima facie evidence to show that the petitioner demanded a bribe and conspired with the other accused persons to commit the criminal act. Therefore, the grounds raised by the petitioner are matters to be adjudicated before the trial court by letting in evidence. Hence, the discharge petition was rightly dismissed by the trial court, and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned
order. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 1381 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 6
6. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The trial court is directed to complete the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. 06-07-2026 SMA To
1. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kanchipuram.
2. Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Kanchipuram.
3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL RC No. 1381 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 6 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. SMA CRL RC No. 1381 of 2026 06-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis