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 decisions.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the State of Kerala represented by Vigilance and Anti-corruption Bureau Special Cell, Ernakulam against the order in C.M.P. No. 810 of 2023 in C.C. No. 21 of 2020 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Muvattupuzha, dated 27.03.2024. Respondent is the sole accused in the above case. Here the revision petitioner assails order in C.M.P No. 810 of 2023 dated 27.03.2024 whereby the learned Special Judge discharged the accused.

2. In this case, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 13 (1)(e) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (for short, PC Act, 1988 hereafter) by the accused. The summary of the prosecution allegation is that the petitioner, who was working as a public servant in various capacities in the Police Department, Government of Kerala in between 01.01.2011 and 31.12.2015, amassed wealth of Rs.33,38,126/- (Rupees Thirty-three lakh thirty-eight thousand one hundred twenty-six) disproportionate to his known source of income, for which he could not account for.

3. The learned Special Public Prosecutor who assailed the order, vehemently submitted that as per order impugned, in paragraph No.25, the learned special judge shown the table of income and expenditure assessed by the special judge and the same during the cheque period (C) is to the tune of Rs.1,12,80,162/- (Rupees One crore twelve lakh eighty thousand one hundred sixty-two) as against Rs.88,36,362/- (Rupees eighty-eight lakh thirty-six thousand three hundred sixty-two) found as the income during the check period by the Investigating Officer, CBI. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the special court considered Rs.20,93,800/- (Rupees Twenty lakh ninety-three thousand eight hundred) to be the agricultural income and also Rs.3,50,000/- on the premise that the same was sent by his brother through the bank account. According to the learned public prosecutor, the petitioner herein filed Crl. M.C. No.4879/2021 and pressed for quashment of the entire proceedings raising similar contentions, and this court negatived the said contentions and observed that ‘the question whether the income claimed by the petitioner under the above three heads could have been included as the income of the petitioner is a matter of evidence’. The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted further that either the prosecution or the accused failed to bring the order in Crl.M.C.No. 4879 of 2021 dated 06.03.2021 before the special judge or the special judge failed to look into the order communicated to him. Anyhow ignoring the observation made by this court in the Crl.M.C., the trial court discharged the accused by considering and taking the income, which was considered by this court in the Crl. M.C and relegated to be decided during trial. According to the learned public prosecutor, as per explanation Section 13 (e) of the PC Act, 1988 for the purpose of Section 13, “known source of the income means the income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to public servants.” It is submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor further that while exercising the power of discharge, the High Court could not exercise the job of a Chartered Accountant and the power of revision could be exercised to correct manifest error of law or procedure which would occasion injustice if not corrected, and the power of revision could not be equated to that of the power of appeal. Further a revisional court cannot undertake meticulous examination of the materials on record as is undertaken by the trial court or the Appellate court during trial based on evidence. In this connection he placed the decision reported in State through Deputy Superintendent of Police v. R. Soundirarasu, 2022 KHC 6920.

4. Resisting this contention and pointing out the income based on the detail