Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 1437
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. MALA, J.
M.S. Kuppusamy (Deceased) & Others - Petitioners
Versus
State rep by Inspector of Police - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 344 of 2005
Decided On : 25-03-2015
For the Appellants:B. Satish Sundar, Advocate.
For the Respondent: K. Srinivasan, Special Public Prosecutor (CBI cases).
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a public servant must provide a plausible explanation for disproportionate wealth and failure to do so can lead to conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Headnote:
PC Act - Disproportionate Wealth - 5(2) r/w 5(1)(e) of PC Act, 1947 corresponding u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of PC Act, 1988 - 5(2) r/w 5(1)(e) of PC Act, 1947
Fact of the Case:
The first appellant, a Preventive Officer, was convicted for amassing disproportionate wealth. The prosecution alleged that he accumulated assets beyond his known sources of income during the period 1980-1985. The Trial Court found him guilty and convicted him under the relevant sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court found incriminating evidence against the accused and convicted him based on oral and documentary evidence. The Court rejected the appellant's explanations and upheld the conviction.
Issues: The issues raised by the appellants included failure to consider income from joint family property, legality of search and seizure, non-examination of witnesses, and failure to consider defense evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the accused failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the disproportionate wealth amassed during the check period. The Court also rejected the defense evidence and upheld the Trial Court's decision.
Final Decision: The Court confirmed the judgment of conviction imposed by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal as abated due to the death of the accused.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against them on 13.04.2005 in C.C.No.17 of 1997 on the file of learned Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai. The first appellant who was arrayed as an accused was convicted and sentenced as follows:
| Sections | Sentences |
| 5(2) r/w 5(1)(e) of PC Act, 1947 corresponding u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of PC Act, 1988 | Two years R.I, Fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 months. |
Set off was ordered under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
2. The case of the prosecution based on the prosecution witnesses is as follows:
(a) The first appellant/accused joined the Customs Department as a Lower Divisional Clerk in the year 1956 and was promoted as a Preventive Officer in the year 1974. He is a member of the Hindu Undivided Family. He is the elder son of the family and he had two brother and four sisters. Till the death of his mother in the year 1982, he had 1/8th share in the Hindu Undivided Family properties and after the death, he had 1/7th share in the properties.
(b) As a Preventive Officer, he worked in various posts such as Bond Officer, Custodian of articles in Customs Warehouse and Preventive Officer of the Customs House and at Air Cargo Complex, Madras. While so, during the year 1985, a case was registered by the CBI, ACB, Chennai against the accused and others in RC.No46/A/85 and after getting search warrant from the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, the search was conducted in the house of the first appellant/accused at Door No.1, Kuppiahchetty Street, West Mambalam.
(c) On the basis of the search lists and inventories, the case in RC.56/85 u/s 5(2) r/w 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was registered against the first appellant/accused on 19.09.1985. Since the accused as a Preventive Officer was posted to sensitive places from the year 1980 onwards, the check period was taken from 01.01.1980 to 31.08.1985.
(d) During the course of the investigation, it was found that the accused acquired most of the assets in the form of Fixed Deposits and other investments in the name of his wife and daughter during the period 1984 82. At the beginning of the check period, the accused was found to be in possession of assets worth Rs.10,410.28/-. The income during the check period is Rs.1,43,916.51/-. The expenditure during the check period is Rs.42,166.18/- and the lawful savings during the check period is Rs.1,01,750.33. However, the accused had acquired the assets worth about Rs.3,43,193.62/-. So, the accused accumulated disproportionate wealth to an extent of Rs.2,41,443.29/-.
(e) Since the first appellant/accused was not able to satisfactorily account for the said assets, the Investigating Officer laid the chargesheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
3. The learned Trial Judge placed incriminating evidence against the accused under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. The accused denied the same in toto. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Judge has convicted the first appellant/accused as stated above.
4. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the learned counsel for the appellants had raised the raised the following points:
(i) The Trial Court has failed to consider the income received from the joint family property. Even though in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the first appellant/accused had specifically stated that after the death of his mother, as her eldest son viz., kartha of the family, he had received the income from the immovable properties and the salary of other working members of the joint family and made investments, the same was not properly appreciated by the Trial Court.
(ii) The property at Adambakkam was purchased only after obtaining necessary permission from the authorities concerned. The authority concerned
