Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
V. Panneer Selvam and Others – Appellants
Versus
State, Rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dindugal – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 183 of 2007
Decided On : 15-02-2018
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - SECTION 13(2) R/W 13(1)(E) - DISPROPORTIONATE ASSETS - APPELLANT PUBLIC SERVANT AND HIS TWO WIVES WERE CONVICTED FOR AMASSING WEALTH DURING HIS TENURE AS MLA - HELD, THE EXPLANATIONS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANTS WERE NOT ACCEPTABLE AND THE TRIAL COURT HAD RIGHTLY CONCLUDED THAT THE APPELLANTS HAD ACQUIRED DISPROPORTIONATE ASSETS.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a former MLA, and his two wives were convicted by the trial court for amassing wealth during his tenure as MLA. The prosecution alleged that the appellant had amassed wealth by abusing his official position and that his wives had abetted him by lending their names to acquire property from unknown sources. The appellants challenged the conviction on various grounds, including that the trial court had failed to appreciate the evidence properly and that the prosecution had failed to prove that the assets in question were acquired through illegal means.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court had not erred in its appreciation of the evidence and that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants had acquired disproportionate assets during the appellant's tenure as MLA. The court also found that the explanations given by the appellants for the acquisition of these assets were not credible.
Issues: Whether the trial court had erred in its appreciation of the evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial court had not erred in its appreciation of the evidence and that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants had acquired disproportionate assets during the appellant's tenure as MLA. The court also found that the explanations given by the appellants for the acquisition of these assets were not credible.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the sentence and conviction imposed on the accused by the Trial Court in Special C.C. No. 1 of 2003 on the file of Special Judge IX Additional Session Judge, Chennai vide judgment dated 29.01.2007 for possessing disproportionate assets beyond their known source of income.
2. The 1st Appellant V. Panner Selvam was the Former Member of Legislative Assembly, died pending appeal. Memo has been filed to that effect by the prosecution reporting his death on 04.02.2012. The 2nd Appellant P. Janakiammal and the 3rd Appellant P. Dhanapakkiyam are the two wives of deceased V. Paneerselvam [A.1]
3. The Case of the prosecution is that, the deceased V. Panner Selvam who was the Member of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, Bodi Assembly Constituency during the year 1991-1996, has amassed wealth during that period by abusing his official possession. The 2nd and 3rd appellants who are his wives have abetted him to amass wealth by lending their name to acquire property from out of the unknown source.
4. Accordingly, charges has been framed against A1 [V. Panner Selvam] for offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998 and as against the appellants A2 and A3 under Section 109 of I.P.C r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
5. To prove the charges the prosecution has examined 115 witnesses, marked 267 exhibits. In defence 3 witnesses and 25 exhibits marked.
6. The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence let in by the prosecution as well as defence has arrived at following conclusion
(i) This Court hold that the value of ancestral property and other properties possessed by accused and their family at the beginning of the check period at Rs. 5,21,932.75 as value of Statement No. I value of properties possessed by accused and their family at the end of check period at Rs. 34,16,959/- mentioned in statement no. II, the value of income derived by accused and their family during the check period at Rs. 16,34,746.86 in Statement No. III and the value of expenditure of accused and their family during check period at Rs. 8,01,155.50 in statement No. IV are duly proved by the prosecution before this Court by adducing oral and documentary evidences.
1.
Value of statement No. I
Rs. 5,21,932.75
2.
Value of Statement No. II
Rs. 34,16,959.55
3.
Value of Statement No. III
Rs. 16,34,746.86
4.
Value of Statement No. IV
Rs. 8,01,155.50
(ii) The actual value of properties acquired by accused and their family is (2)-(1) comes to Rs. 28,68,026.80. Actual savings of accused and their family is (3)-(4) comes to Rs. 8,33,591.36. The value of excess assets acquired by accused and their family during the check period is Rs. 20,61,435.44 (Rs. 28,35,026.80 - Rs. 8,33,591.36). The explanation given by accused before this Court about the sources for acquiring such disproportionate assets are not acceptable by this Court. The explanations given by accused are moonshine without any support of evidence. The persons connected with Exs.D7, D15, D16, D18 and D25 are not examined by defence to prove the contents of the documents as true. There is no opportunity given to prosecution side to test the documents genuineness. Mere filing of documents without any proof is not acceptable. Those documents are marked as Exhibits subject to objection made by prosecution side. Neither trip sheet nor the receipts for the rents of the vehicles is produced. Hence this Court does not believe them as proved. Some of the transactions mentioned in the said documents had not been stated in the Cash Flow Statements also. More over Ex.P.213 and Ex.P.214 are marked as cash flow statements of A1 and A3 said to be submitted by them to Income Tax Department for the period up to 31.03.1996. Normally the income tax returns will be submitted for the current year only in the n
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
