The prosecution must prove disproportionate assets based on known income sources, while the accused must explain their assets, but calculations related to family income are to be evaluated during trial, not pre-trial.

ORDER :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , seeking to quash all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A14 Final Report in FIR No.V.C. 11/17/SCE of VACB, Special Cell, Ernakulam, now pending as C.C. No.6 of 2022 on the files of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Muvattupuzha. The petitioner herein is the sole accused in the above case.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the relevant materials available and the decisions placed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. In this matter, the prosecution allegation is that, the petitioner, who retired as Superintending Engineer, LSGD, South Circle, Thiruvananthapuram, while working as a Government servant during the period from 01.01.2006 to 07.10.2017 had amazed assets worth Rs.5,76,00,687.24, which is 149.22% in excess of his known sources of income and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred as ‘P.C. Act’ for short].

4. While canvasing interference of the Final Report by way of quashment, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in this case, by registering Annexure-A8 FIR as on 05.10.2017, as a result of a quick verification done earlier, the petitioner/accused alleged to have committed offences punishable under Section Section 13 (1)(e) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act and the allegation of the prosecution was that the petitioner amazed disproportionate asset to the tune of Rs.2,59,83,805/-, which is 82.80% of his total income. Aggrieved by Annexure-A8 FIR, the petitioner had filed Crl.M.C. No.7141/2017 before this Court and the same was disposed of as per Annexure-A11 order dated 09.01.2018. As per Annexure-A11 order, the grievance of the petitioner herein as regards to non consideration of Income Tax Returns submitted by the family members of the petitioner by the Investigating OfÏcer, before submitting the quick verification report had been addressed and finally a direction was given to the Investigating OfÏcer to consider the Income Tax Returns and the bank statements of the petitioner and his family members before proceeding further in the matter. Pursuant to the said direction, Annexure-A12 summons was issued by the Investigating OfÏcer directing the petitioner to appear before the OfÏce of the Dy.S.P.-1, Special Cell Ernakulam on 23.01.2018. The petitioner appeared before the Investigating OfÏcer and submitted Annexure-A13 representation along with 11 documents. However, without properly considering the documents produced by the petitioner, Annexure-A14 Final Report was filed alleging that the petitioner/accused amazed assets worth Rs.5,76,00,687.24, which is 149.22% in excess of his known sources of income.

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, when this matter came up for consideration before this Court, as per the order dated 29.10.2024, this Court directed the petitioner to produce Income Tax Returns for the years pertaining to 2007-2008 upto 2018-2019, with direction to consider the same by the Investigating OfÏcer. Even though, additional statement has been filed by the Vigilance, the grievance of the petitioner was not addressed, particularly, in the matter of calculation of the rent obtained by the petitioner and the income of his family members. Pointing out the said anomaly, a reply statement also has been filed by the petitioner.

6. In gist, the point argued by the learned couns