Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. OF 2023
( DIARY NO. 10002 OF 2023)
WITH
I.A. NOS. 50625, 50630 AND 50627 OF 2023
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1256 OF 2022
EDAPADDI PALANISWAMI … PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
R.S.BHARATHI & ANR. … RESPONDENT(S)
AND
RAJ KISHOR RAUT … APPLICANT (S)
JUDGMENT
KRISHNA MURARI, J.
Permission to file the intervention application is granted .
2. Application for intervention stands allowed.
1
3. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant.
4. By means of this Miscellaneous Application, the applicant seeks a
clarification of the order dated 03.08.2022 passed by this Court in Criminal
Appeal No. 1256 of 2022.
5. The said criminal appeal was directed against an order dated 12.10.2018
passed by Madras High Court allowing the petition under Section 482 filed by
the respondent therein with a direction to hand over all the case filed and
material to the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct a preliminary enquiry
against the appellant therein and other co-accused. This Court vide final
judgment and order dated 03.08.2022 allowed the appeal and remitted the
matter back to the High Court to consider the same afresh and pass appropriate
orders in accordance with law.
6. The applicant by means of this application alleging massive fraud by one
IRB Expressway Private Limited apprehending connivance with unknown
officials of State of Maharashtra /MSRDC/MPEL who, according to applicant,
may have conspired to give relief of reduction in contractual payment to the
2
Government undertaking by more than Rs.70 crores on frivolous concocted
grounds.
7. Apprehending that the order dated 03.08.2022 passed by this Court may
come in the way of applicant who intends to seek the investigation in the matter
through CBI and in abundant caution the application has been filed seeking
clarification of the judgment dated 03.08.2022
8. A bare perusal of the averments made in the application seeking
clarification goes to show that on having come to know that M/S. IRB
Expressway Private Ltd. (IRB) which is operating in connivance with the
officials of the State of Maharashtra has got a relief of about Rs.70 crores by
falsely claiming exemption due to covid. The applicant had issued a notice
dated 06.03.2023 to IRB giving them an opportunity to disclose the defense
prior to initiating legal action which was duly replied by the said company
denying the allegations with the explanation and supporting correspondence
with officials exchanged in this regard which the applicant has himself brought
on record annexing the said documents to the application.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order dated 03.08.2022
passed by this Court setting aside directions of the High Court for preliminary
3
enquiry by CBI, may come in his way to seek CBI investigation into the
complaints and allegations and, therefore, the order needs to be clarified.
10. We are really surprised at the manner and the reasons in which this
application has been made. A perusal of Annexure-3, the response of IRB, in
reply to the notice issued by the applicant itself goes to show that reduction in
payment of premium was allowed by the authorities because the Government of
India had ordered complete closure of all Toll Plazas including the one in issue
w.e.f. 26.03.2020 to 19.04.2020 due to covid.
11. Office memorandum dated 13.05.2020 issued by the Government in this
regard is also a part of the documents annexed by the applicant himself in the
application invoking the force majeure clause in the agreement between the
parties. In such peculiar factual matrix of the contractual matter between a
different set of parties, in our opinion, the complaint, if any made by the
applicant has to be considered on its own merits and the judgment and order
dated 03.08.2022 passed by this court, in a totally unconnected matter, between
different parties, having no nexus with alleged complaint which the applicant
proposes to make, will have no bearing on the same and thus the order dated
03.08.2022 does not calls for any clarification or modification at the behest of
the present applicant.
4
12. Further, in any view of the matter, the applicant has no locus to seek
clarification/modification of an order passed in a totally unconnected matter.
13. The application is totally misconceived and, accordingly, stands
dismissed.
…...…...…....….......................…,J.
(KRISHNA MURARI)
……...….…....….......................…,J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
NEW DELHI;
TH
24 MARCH, 202 3
5