Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU
Durai Murugan
Versus
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Vellore
W.P.No.13788 of 2012 & M.P.No.1 of 2012
Decided on : 26-06-2012
Disproportionate Assets - Investigation - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(2), Section 13(1)(e) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, particularly Section 13(2) and Section 13(1)(e), and emphasized the burden on the accused to account satisfactorily for disproportionate assets. The court also highlighted the limited role of the investigating officer and the nature of investigation in disproportionate assets cases.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a member of the legislative Assembly, challenged a notice directing him to account for disproportionate assets. The court had previously disposed of a similar writ petition, and the petitioner had given a reply to the notice. The respondent filed a counter affidavit stating the registration of a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the executive through the police department. It held that the accused has no right to have any say as regards the manner and method of investigation and that the opportunity to explain about assets and resources is to be afforded during the trial.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's challenge to the notice directing him to account for disproportionate assets, the role of the investigating officer, and the nature of investigation in disproportionate assets cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the limited role of the investigating officer, the burden on the accused to account satisfactorily for disproportionate assets, and the exclusive authority of the executive in the investigation of an offence.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
The legal document discusses the investigation process related to allegations of disproportionate assets under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It emphasizes that the investigation is an executive function, carried out by the police, and that the accused has no right to influence or participate in the manner and method of investigation until the trial stage (!) (!) . The court clarifies that the opportunity for the accused to explain assets and resources is to be provided during the trial, not before or during the investigation (!) .
The document underscores that the burden of proving the possession of disproportionate assets lies with the prosecution, and the accused is required to satisfactorily account for assets during the trial stage (!) (!) (!) . The investigation's role is limited to collecting evidence without the necessity of giving the accused an opportunity to explain assets beforehand (!) (!) .
It also highlights that the investigation process should be unbiased and thorough, with the investigating officer responsible for assessing the value of assets and income without suppression or inflation (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . The accused’s right to be heard on the issue of assets arises only during the trial, not during the investigation, and no violation of natural justice occurs if this opportunity is not provided earlier (!) (!) .
Furthermore, the document stresses that the investigation is a preliminary inquiry, and the role of courts is limited at this stage, except in cases where proceedings may be quashed to prevent abuse of process, which is not applicable here (!) (!) (!) .
In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, affirming that the investigation and the manner of collecting evidence are within the exclusive domain of the executive authorities, and the accused's right to explain assets is reserved for the trial stage (!) (!) .
1. The petitioner is a member of the legislative Assembly from Katpadi constituency and claims to be the Deputy General Secretary of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), a registered political party. He was also a former minister during the tenure of the previous Government.
2. The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the petitioner should be given one more opportunity by re-issuance of a final opportunity notice in the investigation into the disproportionate Assets case registered against him?
3. The petitioner by a notice dated 11.3.2012 issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Vellore, was directed to sent his replies in response to a questionnaire form given on or before 20.3.2012. He was informed that if he did not appear and give his statement or if he expressed his intention not to give any reply, it will be presumed that he has no explanation to offer and further criminal investigation will take place. The petitioner challenging the said notice filed a writ petition before this court in W.P.No.8391 of 2012.
4. This court disposed of the writ petition by an order dated 10.04.2012 after recording the statement made by the learned Public Prosecutor and in paragraphs 11 to 13, it was observed as follows :
"11) .....learned Public Prosecutor stated at the bar, that the impugned questionnaire is voluntary and it is for the petitioner either to answer or not to answer it. In the event of the petitioner not answering the questionnaire, no adverse action will be taken and it will be for the Investigating Agency to proceed with the investigation strictly as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
12.) In view of the positive stand of the learned Public Prosecutor, the petitioner cannot have any grievance to the impugned questionnaire, as the petitioner has option to ignore it, if so advised.
13.) This writ petition is, therefore, disposed of, by recording the statement of learned Public Prosecutor. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed."
5. It is pursuant to the said direction, the impugned notice dated 25.4.2012 came to be issued by the respondents asking the petitioner and his wife to account for disproportionate assets and that the notice was labeled as the final opportunity notice. Once again, the petitioner is before this court challenging the said notice in the present writ petition. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 30.5.2012, this court had passed the following interim order :
"It is represented by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that time expires today for giving a reply and hence, there shall be an interim order.
However, learned Advocate General, representing the learned Special Government Pleader submits that if an application is given to the respondent, there will not be any opposition to grant extension of time for reply."
Pursuant to the same, the petitioner also gave a reply on 09.05.2012. Notwithstanding the same, the petitioner insisted for a hearing of the main writ petition by this court.
6. On behalf of the respondent, a counter affidavit, dated 29.5.2012 has been filed. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that a FIR was registered against the petitioner and his wife under Section 13(2) read with S.13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Only after conducting the preliminary enquiry and having satisfied that there was prima facie materials against the petitioner, the case in Crime No.17 of 2011 was registered. In respect of materials gathered, it is the petitioner who will have to give satisfactory account for the disproportionate assets to the known source of income and it can be done only during trial. The petitioner will have ample opportunities in giving satisfactory accounts during trial. There is no provision of law or otherwise which makes it obligatory on the part of the respondent to give him an opportunity of being h
AI
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
