Palani mutt land fraud case: Madras HC refuses transfer of probe to CBI

MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Monday dismissed petitions seeking a CBI probe into the alleged Rs 100-crore Dhandayuthapani Swamigal Mutt land fraud case.

While allowing the CB-CID to continue the investigation into the case, a Division Bench comprising Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice R Sakthivel observed that the transfer of the investigation could not be ordered merely on the basis of suspicion or speculation.

Referring to the directions of the Supreme Court, the Judges observed that the apex court had clearly stated that when an investigation is transferred from one agency to another, the court must record in its order that there is prima facie material against the accused.

The Supreme Court had also made it clear that a court could not directly order a CBI investigation merely to determine whether a person alleged to have actually committed an offence or not, the Judges observed.

In such circumstances, this Court could not order the transfer of the CB-CID investigation to another agency, the Bench said.

Expressing satisfaction with the progress of the CB-CID investigation, the Court observed that the agency had so far conducted searches at 16 locations in six districts through special teams. During the searches, 207 documents, 12 mobile phones, three laptops and eight other electronic devices were seized.

The CB-CID had so far examined 115 witnesses, including officials from the Registration Department, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department and Revenue Department, said the Court

Records relating to the Registration Department, Revenue Department and banking transactions had also been seized and required detailed examination, the Court observed. CCTV footage had also been collected in connection with the case.

Earlier, the government counsel informed the Court that the petitions seeking a CBI investigation were politically motivated, as the petitioners included a member of a political party, a trustee of the Palani temple and the chairperson of the Palani Municipality.

Referring to judicial precedents, the government submitted that only petitions filed genuinely in the public interest and without any personal motive could be entertained as public interest litigation. Therefore, the petitions were not maintainable as PILs, it argued.