Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
P.J. Alexander Formerly Director General of Police - Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation - Respondent
Crl.MC 3916 OF 2012
Decided On : 29-01-2025
(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) - Discharge application - The petitioner, a retired Director General of Police, challenged the charge of disproportionate assets. The Special Court's dismissal of the discharge application was contested, asserting that the prosecution failed to consider independent income of the petitioner's family. The court emphasized the need to evaluate all relevant documents and income sources before framing charges. (Paras 1 - 39 )
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 239 - The court reiterated that the judge must consider prima facie evidence and cannot act merely as a mouthpiece for the prosecution. The court must evaluate the totality of evidence and documents presented. (Paras 7 , 10 , 35 )
ORDER :
The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.52 of 2011 on the files of the Court of the Special Judge (SPE/CBI), Thiruvananthapuram. He is indicted with the offences punishable under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.35 of 2012 seeking discharge. That application was dismissed by the Special Court as per the order dated 27.08.2012. He filed the Crl.M.C. under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code) challenging the said order and to hold that the final report was filed against him without any grounds. While the Crl.M.C. was pending consideration, the Special Court framed charge against the petitioner on 25.02.2019. Seeking to set aside the said charge, Crl.R.P.No.493 of 2019 was filed by the petitioner invoking the provisions of Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code.
3. The petitioner was the Director, Institute of Management in Government, Thiruvananthapuram. Subsequently, he retired as Director General of Police on 31.08.1994. Alleging that he acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income during the period from 30.04.1980 to 20.09.1991, a crime was registered on 12.09.1991. After investigation, a final report was filed with the following allegations:
The petitioner, who was a member of the Indian Police Service, had been working in various capacities from 30.04.1980 to 20.09.1991. At the beginning of the said period, the assets of himself and members of his family were worth Rs.11,66,536.61, besides their ancestral agricultural properties at Kottarakkara and Kulasekharam, and jewelleries. During the said period, they have acquired assets worth Rs.83,63,776.37. The total income of the petitioner, his wife and three children together during the said period was Rs.60,48,997.01. Together with the cash and deposits with them at the beginning of Rs.8,27,929.61, they obtained a total income of 68,76,126.66. Out of the said amount, the petitioner and members of his family had to incur an expenditure of Rs.47,94,147.63. Therefore, their total savings was Rs.20,82,038.99. But they together had acquired during the said period assets worth Rs.83,63,776.37. Therefore, assets worth Rs.62,81,737.38, which they acquired during the check period are disproportionate. The allegation is that the said assets were acquired by the petitioner by himself or on his behalf, and exceeding their known sources of income and thereby an offence of criminal misconduct was committed.
4. The documents are referred to as they are marked in Crl.M.C.No.3916 of 2012.
5. The petitioner earlier filed an application for discharge before the Special Court and when that application was dismissed, he approached this Court by filing Crl.M.C.No.3081 of 2005. The said Crl.M.C. was disposed of by this Court as per the order dated 15.03.2006 (Alexander v. C.B.I. [2005 (2) KLT 240 ]). A Division Bench of this Court set aside the order dismissing the discharge application, Crl.M.P.No.239 of 2001, and directed the Special Court to proceed with the case from the stage of consideration of the said application. It is seen that the petitioner has thereafter filed Crl.M.P.No.35 of 2012 seeking discharge under Section 239 of the Code. The order dismissing the said application, Annexure-C is impugned in the Crl.M.C. The charge framed by the Special Court against the petitioner is impugned in the Crl.R.P.
6. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appeared on instructions for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the CBI.
7. This case has a cherished history. According to the petitioner, the crime was registered and the final report was filed without any rhyme or reason. He was on deputation and
The court must consider all relevant income sources and documents before framing charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, ensuring a fair evaluation of the accused's financial status.
The necessity of proper evidence evaluation at trial for substantiating income claims in disproportionate assets cases, distinguishing the limited scope of revisional power concerning discharge decis....
In assessing disproportionate assets, a public servant's family's income and expenditures can be included for determining asset accumulation.
The court ruled that a special judge's discharge finding is flawed if it performs a mini trial rather than evaluating evidence for the basis of accusations, necessitating a trial.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the charge can be framed based on the possibility of the commission of a crime, even if the case is based on circumstantial evidence. The Cour....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a fair investigation, active consideration of materials before framing charges, and the duty to prevent abuse of the court's pr....
A public servant and abettors can be tried together for possession of disproportionate assets without a satisfactory account of their sources, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
At the discharge stage under Section 239 Cr.P.C., courts assess if allegations, taken at face value, reveal a prima facie case without detailed evidentiary analysis.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
