Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Wahideeda Jayaraman & Others - Appellant
Versus
State Represented by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chennai - Respondents
Crl.A(MD)No. 556 & 557 of 2007 & Crl.M.P(MD)Nos. 6605 & 6606 of 2018
Decided On : 09-11-2018
The appellants were convicted for offence under Section 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act, 1988 punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. The other two accused, who are appellants in Crl.A(MD)No.556 of 2007 were convicted for offence under Section 109 IPC read with 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act for abetting A.1, they both were sentenced to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each in default to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment.
Fact of the Case:
The charge against Jayaraman (A.1) is that, he being a public servant worked in different capacities in the Central Excise Department, had acquired assets and pecuniary resources disproportionate to his known source of income. During the check period between 01.01.1989 and 31.03.2004, the disproportionate assets and pecuniary resources of property which stands in the name of the public servant namely, Jayaraman, his wife Waheeda Jayaraman (A.2) and his father Velu (A.3), exceeds to an extent of Rs.45,62,206/-. Therefore, Jayaraman (A.1) was convicted for offence under Section 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act, 1988 punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. The other two accused, who are appellants in Crl.A(MD)No.556 of 2007 were convicted for offence under Section 109 IPC read with 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act for abetting A.1, they both were sentenced to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each in default to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the appellants had acquired assets disproportionate to their known source of income. The Court also found that the appellants had not provided any satisfactory explanation for the source of the assets. The Court held that the appellants were guilty of the offences charged and sentenced them accordingly.
Issues: Whether the Court below has properly appreciated the value of the assets and the source of income to arrive at the conclusion that the public servant had acquired assets disproportionate to his known source of income and his wife and father abetted him to acquire those assets?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the prosecution had proved beyond doubt, the total value of the property held by these appellants far and above the known source of income, even if some minor variations found in the valuation statement, it will not go to the root of the case to disbelieve A.1 had amassed wealth beyond his known source of income. The Court also held that the value of the household articles were collected by the prosecution either from the declaration of the accused himself or supported by bills for purchase of these articles. 1/3rd deduction from gross income includes not only electrical charges, water charge, but also money spent for the food and other basic needs.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeals and confirmed the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18.10.2007 passed in C.C.No.5 of 2006 by the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai. The Trial Court was directed to secure the appellants/accused and commit them to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence. The bail bonds if any executed by them shall stand cancelled. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions were dismissed.
1. These two appeals are directed against the Judgment of the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai passed in C.C.No.5 of 2006, dated 18.10.2007. The appellant in Crl.A(MD)No.557 of 2007 is one Jayaraman (A.1), former Joint Commissioner, Central Exicse Department, a public servant. The appellants in Crl.A(MD)No.556 of 2007 are Waheeda Jayaraman (A.2), wife of Jayaraman and P.Velu (A.3), father of Jayaraman.
2. The charge against Jayaraman (A.1) is that, he being a public servant worked in different capacities in the Central Excise Department, had acquired assets and pecuniary resources disproportionate to his known source of income. During the check period between 01.01.1989 and 31.03.2004, the disproportionate assets and pecuniary resources of property which stands in the name of the public servant namely, Jayaraman, his wife Waheeda Jayaraman and his father Velu, exceeds to an extent of Rs.45,62,206/-.
3. Therefore, Jayaraman (A.1) was convicted for offence under Section 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act, 1988 punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. The other two accused, who are appellants in Crl.A(MD)No.556 of 2007 were convicted for offence under Section 109 IPC read with 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act for abetting A.1, they both were sentenced to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each in default to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the above appeals are preferred.
4. Prosecution case in brief :
(i) Based on reliable information received by the office of Superintendent of Police, SPE/CBI/ACB/Chennai, a First Information Report (Ex.P.114) was registered on 26.04.2004 against the appellants for offence under Section 120-B read with 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act suspecting conspiracy to acquire and possess disproportionate assets beyond the known source of income of the public servant.
(ii) According to the First Information Report, Jayaraman (A.1) joined as Lower Division Clerk in the Department of Central Excise in the month of July, 1971. He became Inspector of Central Excise in the year 1973. Later promoted as Superintendent of Central Excise in the year 1985. Became Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise in the year 1995 and promoted further as Joint Commissioner of Central Excise during the month of January, 2004. He as a public servant and income tax assessee, had been periodically filing his income tax returns. His wife Waheeda Jayaraman (A.2) till 2002 was a house wife. Thereafter, took employment in a private school as a teacher and also engaged in giving tuition. She is also an income tax assessee and had filed income tax returns periodically.
(iii) P. Velu (A.3), the father of Jayaraman a retired Police Constance, is a pensioner since 1986. His family has ancestral dry agricultural land measuring 8.8 acres in Veeramadai Village, Thirukovilur Taluk, Vilupuram District. He had purchased a house of Veeramadai Village in the year 1976 and 6.60 acres of dry land in the year 1997. Both the ancestral agricultural lands and the land purchased by Velu are dry lands without any substantial yield. He is living separately at Vilupuram. Both Waheeda Jayaraman (A.2) and P.Velu (A.3) though have no substantial income to acquire assets knowing fully well that A.1 have no other source of income except his salaried income, had lent their names to acquire wealth from the unknown source of income acquired by A.1. Thus, they have conspired with A.1 and in pursuant to the conspiracy, started acquiring movable and immovablae assets since 01.01.1989 in their name.
(iv). The check period taken between 01.01.1989 and 31.03.2004, the information gathered indicates:
(i). The total income of the accus
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
