Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 1900
High Court of Judicature at Madras
C.S. KARNAN, J.
Mrs. K.R. Saraswathi
Versus
State Rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption, Sivagangai
CRL.R.C.NO. 68, 92, 93 & 215 OF 2009 & M.P.NO.1 OF 2009
Decided on : 17-04-2012
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:G. Saravana Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent: C. Balasubramanian, Additional Public Prosecutor.
Prima facie case based on properties purchased in the accused's name and income-assets discrepancy.
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act - Abetment - Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) - Section 109 IPC - [Prevention of Corruption Act, Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e), Section 109 IPC] - The court dismissed the discharge petition of the accused, finding a prima facie case against the accused based on the properties purchased in the accused's name and the discrepancy between the accused's income and the acquired assets. The court confirmed the lower court's decision, stating that the revision is not maintainable and there are no erroneous findings in the lower court's order.
Fact of the Case:
The accused filed a discharge petition stating lack of evidence to show abetment and acquisition of assets in her name. The prosecution countered, presenting evidence of discrepancy between the accused's income and acquired assets.
Finding of the Court:
The court found a prima facie case against the accused based on the properties purchased in her name and the income-assets discrepancy. The court confirmed the lower court's decision, dismissing the revision petition.
Issues: Discharge petition based on lack of evidence and discrepancy in income-assets evaluation.
Ratio Decidendi: Prima facie case based on properties purchased in the accused's name and income-assets discrepancy. Revision not maintainable.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition and confirmed the lower court's decision.
The nutshell of the case are as follows:-
The revision petitioner / accused No.20 had filed a discharge petition in Crl.M.P.No.378 of 2007 in Special C.C.No.1 of 2005 to discharge him in Crime No.9/AC/96/HQ for the offences under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 109 IPC, stating that the revision petitioner has not abetted with Thiru. S. Kannappan, as alleged in the final report. The petitioner further stated that there are no material evidence to show that the petitioner has abetted Thiru. S. Kannappan to acquire assets in forms of land, house sites, house buildings, investments in banks, deposits as alleged in the final report. Actually, the petitioner had derived an annual income out of her agricultural lands. The petitioner has stated that there are no material evidence to show that Thiru. S. Kannappan has purchased the below mentioned properties in the name of the petitioner herein viz.,
1) Vacant site measuring 1916 sq.ft, situated at Alandur Village,
2) Coffee estate measuring 19.31 acres at Karnataka Statements,
3) Investments made in Kavitha Pharma, Chennai,
4) Investments made in Rajamani Bankers at Mayiladuthurai and
5) Investment made in Guru Hotels at Coimbatore.
Therefore, the prosecution has filed the criminal case against the revision petitioner without substantial evidence. Hence, the revision petitioner has sought the relief of discharge from the criminal case.
2. The respondent had filed a counter statement and resisted the said petition. The respondent stated that the income derived in the name of this petitioner was Rs.49,721/- during the period between 17.06.1991 and 13.05.1996, but the asset worth Rs.28,56,332/- had been acquired in her name during the check period. As such, the revision petitioner had abetted with A1. The respondent further stated that the A1 had purchased property in the name of the revision petitioner at Alandur viz., house site, coffee estate at Karnataka and had made investments in Kavitha Pharmacy, Chennai and Rajamani Bankers, Mayiladuthurai, investments made in Guru Hotels (P) Ltd., in the name of the revision petitioner. To prove the said charges, relevant documents are available.
3. On considering the averments of both parties and on hearing the arguments of learned counsels for both parties, the learned judge had observed that the investigation officer has detailed the properties purchased in the name of this accused during the check period and had valued it at Rs.28,56,332/-. The petitioner has alleged that the properties standing in her name are her personal properties and the same has been purchased out of her personal amount, but there is no whisper regarding the source for purchasing the properties to the tune of Rs.28,56,332/-. At this stage of framing charges, a prima facie case against the accused is sufficient. Hence, the learned judge dismissed the said petition.
4. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the above revision has been filed by the accused.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has argued that the lower Court ought to have seen that there are no materials to show that the petitioner has abetted Thiru. S. Kannappan to acquire assets in the form of land, house sites, house buildings, investment in banks and deposits as alleged in the final report. It was pointed out that the investigating officer had failed to take into account the income of the petitioner during the check period and had wrongly calculated the income and expenditure of the petitioner. It was further contended that the petitioner had acquired the assets in her own name through use of independent means and income and that the Investigation Officer had wrongly evaluated the assets as on 13.05.1996 as Rs.28,56,332/- and had wrongly assessed her income as on 13.05.1996 at Rs.49,721/-. It was pointed out that the petitioner had derived annual income out of agricultural and dairy activities and that the lower Court should
