The prosecution must establish the accused's possession of disproportionate assets and the accused must satisfactorily account for such assets. The chosen check period should provide a true and comprehensive picture of the accused's income and assets.

ORDER :

The petitioner is the sole accused in the case C.C.No.6/2019 pending in the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur.

2. The petitioner was the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Irinjalakuda. On getting reliable information that he was in the habit of accepting illegal gratification from many persons, a surprise check was conducted on him at about 11:30 hours on 12.12.2014, at the Thrissur Railway Station, by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), Thrissur. Then an amount of Rs.56,500/-was seized from the possession of the petitioner.

3. The report of the surprise check was forwarded to the Director, VACB by the Deputy Superintendent of Police through the Superintendent of Police, Central Range, VACB, Ernakulam on 15.12.2014, recommending registration of a case against the petitioner. The Superintendent of Police, Central Range, VACB, Ernakulam returned the report with a direction to take necessary action. Thereafter, on 03.02.2015, Annexure-B FIR was registered against the petitioner. After completing the investigation of the case, charge sheet against the petitioner was filed for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act').

4. The allegation against the petitioner, in Annexure-C charge sheet filed against him, reads as follows:

“Accused, while working as the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Sub RT Office, Irinjalakuda during the period from 21.07.2014 to 12.12.2014 and as such being a public servant by abusing his official position has acquired assets worth Rs.1,46,271/-and incurred expenditures of Rs.3,56,086/-while his income during that period was Rs.3,91,857/-. Thus on 12.12.2014, he has been found in possession of disproportionate assets worth Rs.1,10,500/-which is 28.20% above his income from all known sources for which he could not satisfactorily account for and which is nothing but the pecuniary resources or properties acquired by him in his name and in the name of his relatives on his behalf, disproportionate to this known sources of income and thereby the said Sri.K.S.Shibu has committed the offence of criminal misconduct.”

5. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') for quashing Annexure-C charge sheet filed against the petitioner and the proceedings initiated against him on the basis of it.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

7. The case against the petitioner is that he had pecuniary resources in his possession, to the tune of Rs.1,10,500/-, during the period from 21.07.2014 to 12.12.2014, which was disproportionate to his known sources of income during that period.

8. The calculation regarding the disproportionate money possessed by the petitioner is shown in Annexure-C charge sheet as follows:

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised three contentions in challenging Annexure-C charge sheet. They are:

(1) Out of the amount of Rs.56,500/-, which was seized from the possession of the petitioner on 12.12.2014, Rs.50,000/-had been withdrawn by him from the treasury at Irinjalakuda on 04.12.2014. The investigating officer has improperly rejected the explanation of the petitioner regarding the possession of this amount. (2) The petitioner had borro