Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 2706
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Ramanathapuram - Appellant
Versus
Thiru V. Sathyamoorthy and Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2001
Decided On : 06-06-2018
For the Appellant : Mr. C.Emalias Asst. by K.Prabakar
For the Respondents: Mr. V. Gopinath, for Mr. S.Suresh
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 109 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 173 and 313 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 91 and 92 - Acquire Assets - Trial Court after taking note of materials which were collected during investigation and placed before it by prosecution framed charges against A1 for acquiring assets disproportionate to his known source to an extend and against A2 to A7 for abating A1 to acquire assets - To prove case prosecution has examined 113 witnesses 325 Exhibits and 20 material objects were marked - On behalf of defence to disprove case of prosecution 31 witnesses were examined and 16 Exhibits were marked - Trial Court held that prosecution has not properly taken note of source of income available for appellants to acquire assets during check period - valuation of properties were not done consonance with rules and procedure - Trial Court has also pointing out that income tax returns of accused persons and income of 2nd accused from Aqua culture Farm and Rice Mills etc were not given due consideration while arriving at known source of income and ratio of disproportionate assets - Held, On analysis of evidence and finding of trial Court this Court find that trial Judge has unreasonably bend upon to accept readily all and sundry explanations offered by defence to justify accumulation of assets beyond their legally known sources - trial Court has tinkered valuation statements to an extend that accused were found deficit balance - Trial Judge has boosted income and had reduced value of assets held at end of check period by assigning fallacious reasons - Acceptance of documents relied by defence which does not carry any probative value renders trial Court finding unsustainable - Charge against appellants and other accused was for possession of asset worth disproportionate to known source prosecution has deleted item Nos-37 to 49 which listed items of assets also deleted value of Ambassador car and Contessa Car shown as item Nos-52 and 53 - Only after giving due reduction to these items and sovereigns of Gold jewels it has arrived value of asset acquired during check period while known source of income of appellants during check period and expenditure was more or less equal assets they acquired during check period are undoubtedly only from income through unknown source - While income from known source during that period no amount of concession or liberal computation of valuation will justify acquisition of assets worth - Order Accordingly.
This appeal is preferred by the state aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, acquitting A-1 V.Sathyamoorthy tried for the offence under 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act and his wife V.Chandra, A-2 for the offence under Sections 109 I.P.C and 13(2) r/w 13 (1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Gist of the case
Based on the reliable information, a case was registered on 22.08.1996 in Cr.No.7/AC/96/HQ., under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.against Mr.V.Sathyamoorthy who was the Member of the Tamil Nadu State Legislative Assembly from 17.06.1991 to 13.05.1996 as well as Minister for Commercial Taxes in the Government of Tamil Nadu between the period 17.05.1993 and 13.05.1996, for he had accumulated assets and pecuniary resources in his name and in the names of his family members disproportionate to his known sources of income. After investigation final report was filed on 03.11.1997 under Section 173 Cr.P.C before the Trial Court against (i). Tr.V.Sathyamoorthy, (ii). Tmt.V.Chandra W/o A-1, (iii). Tmt.M.Thangam Ammal, mother of A-2, (iv). Tr.V.Mayalaga Thevar, father of A-2, (v). Tmt.T.Anjali Devi, sister of A-2, (vi). Tmt.Pushpavalli, elder brother's daughter of A-1 and (vii). Tmt.Nagavalli, another elder brother's daughter of A-1.
3. The period between 01.01.1992 and 13.05.1996, was considered as check period. At the beginning of the check period, 01.01.1992 A-1 was found in possession of assets to the extent of Rs.1,65,280.60 in his name, in the names of his wife [A-2] and his minor son. The properties are listed in Annexure-I. At the end of the check period on 13.05.1996, A-1 was found in possession of assets and pecuniary resources to the extent of Rs.83,01,948.60 in his name, in the name of A-2 to A-7 and his minor son. The details of assets were listed in Annexure-II. The income derived by A-1 to A-7 and minor son of A-1 during the check period was reckoned as Rs.29,32,758.78 and the expenditures during the check period are Rs.31,28,678.70. These details are shown in Annexure-III and Annexure-IV respectively. The assets acquired by A-1 during the check period in his name and in the names of other accused and his minor son listed and valued at Rs.81,36,668.00 in Annexure-V.
4. Alleging that A1 as public servant [Member of the Legislative Assembly and Minister] has accumulated wealth worth Rs.83,32,587.92 over and above his known source of income in his name and his family members name who were arrayed as A2 to A7, the final report with documents were presented before the trial Court.
5. The Trial Court after taking note of the materials which were collected during the investigation and placed before it by the prosecution framed charges under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act against A1 for acquiring assets disproportionate to his known source to an extend of Rs.83,32,587.92 and against A2 to A7 for abating A1 to acquire the assets.
6. To prove the case, the prosecution has examined 113 witnesses. 325 Exhibits and 20 material objects were marked. On behalf of the defence to disprove the case of the prosecution, 31 witnesses were examined and 16 Exhibits were marked.
7. The Trial Court held that the prosecution has not properly taken note of the source of income available for the appellants to acquire assets during the check period. The valuation of the properties were not done consonance with the rules and procedure. The Trial Court has also pointing out that the income tax returns of the accused persons and the income of 2nd accused from Aqua culture Farm and Rice Mills etc., were not given due consideration while arriving at the known source of income and ratio of disproportionate assets.
8. Taking into consideration of the evidence let in by the prosecution and the contra evidence let in by the defence, the
