Dhoti scam accused seeks reinvestigation of case

By Our Special Correspondent

CHENNAI, MARCH 3. In an interesting development in the case relating to `free dhoti saree scam' during the previous AIADMK rule, an accused has moved the Special Court seeking reinvestigation of the case.

Two other accused have sought the appointment of an officer in the rank of Superintendent of Police or a higher rank officer to conduct further investigation.

Mr. P. Damodarasamy, cited as third accused, submitted that the prosecution had claimed that the benami companies of an accused, Mr. Murugesan, had also supplied dhotis and sarees with reduced specifications and they continued to supply the same even during 1995-96.

These persons had supplied dhotis and sarees to the tune of about Rs. eight crores.

These facts were not at all investigated and none of these persons had been arraigned as accused but only cited as witnesses.

The accused sought reinvestigation of the case and implicate such persons involved as accused.

In a separate application, wherein the Home Secretary was cited as one of the respondents, Mr. Arumugham and Mr. Shanmugasundaram, fifth and sixth accused, said the investigating officer (I.O.) had shown favour to several persons by citing them as witnesses and not arraigning them as accused.

Some others had neither been cited as witness nor arraigned as accused.

They submitted that one Mr. Srinivasan, brother of Mr. Venkatakrishnan, P.A. to former Social Welfare Minister, Ms. Indirakumari, had transacted to the tune of several crores and many witnesses had spoken about his involvement.

The I.O. had shielded him from the clutches of law. The person concerned had neither been treated as an accused nor as witness.

The manner in which the petitioners were being treated was highly discriminatory, they said and sought further investigation by an SP or a higher rank officer.

In the counter, the Special Public Prosecutor, Mr. V. Manokaran, said the applications were not maintainable in law.

Investigation was the prerogative of the investigative agencies and the accused had no locus standi or say in the matter of investigation.

Further under 173 (8) Cr. P. C., the court cannot direct the I.O. to conduct further probe.

In this case, the final report had been filed and 90 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far. Only 20 more remained to be examined.

The applications had been filed only to protract the proceedings, the prosecution submitted.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Southern States
Previous : No 'clash of interests'over service tax
Next     : Call to stop selective abortions