The Madras High Court in the case Suo Moto RC v. Vigilance and Anti-Corruption wing observed and has impleaded the Registrar General in the suo motu revision petition taken up against the acquittal of TN Minister K Ponmudi and his wife in a disproportionate assets case.
The bench headed by Justice G Jayachandran in the case observed and has stated that since the single judge had questioned the procedure adopted in transferring the case to a different Court which was essentially an administrative order, the Registrar General was the necessary party.
The court in the case observed that several issued have cropped up during the course of hearing, particularly regarding the powers of Port-Folio Judges transferring case pending before one Sessions Division to another Sessions Division on the administrative side. Thus, for proper adjudication of the issue, the Registrar-General of the High Court of Madras is a necessary party and therefore, the above two Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions to implead the Registrar-General, High Court of Madras as the fourth respondent, is allowed.
The bench headed by Justice Anand Venkatesh in the case observed and has exercised the suo motu revision powers and has held that the transfer of trial against Ponmudi and his wife from one district to another at the end of the trial was ex-facie illegal and non-est in the eye of the law.
The bench of Justice Venkatesh in the case observed and has stated that the law did not give authority to the High Court administration to transfer a pending criminal case from one district to another, either under the Constitution or the Letter Patent and it has even remarked by the judgement that there was a shocking and calculated attempt to manipulate and subvert the criminal justice system.
The Apex Court refused to interfere with the order and even went on to appreciate Justice Anand Venkatesh.
It has also been remarked by the Chief Justice that there was no administrative power to transfer trial but only a judicial power existed.
The Apex Court in the case observed and has allowed the retired sessions judge against whom the single judge had made adverse remarks to submit a response to the adverse observations in the suo moto revision petitions to the Registrar General.
The bench of Justice Jayachandran agreed with Senior Advocate NR Elango appearing for Ponmudi and observed that the transfer order passed by the High Court transferring the trail from Villupuram to Vellore was essentially an order passed on the administrative side of the High Court.
The court noted that the Registrar General was a necessary party the court impleaded the Registrar General and asked him to reply to the plea by December 12, 2023.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case allowed the plea moved by Ponmudi’s in order to get a copy of the response of the Judicial Officer noting that the same was necessary for Ponmudi to represent effectively.
Accordingly, the court listed the matter for further consideration on December 12, 202