IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.
K.R. Velu - Appellant
Versus
State by The Inspector of Police, CBI ACB, Chennai - Respondent
CRL.A. No. 543 of 2013
Decided On : 16-06-2022
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for records and to set aside the Judgment dated 30.07.2013 in C.C.No.5 of 2004 rendered by XII Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai.)
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment in C.C.No.5 of 2004, dated 30.07.2013, passed by the XII Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai in convicting the appellant for the offences under Sections 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 468 , 468 r/w 471, 467 and 467 r/w 471 IPC and sentencing thereunder.
2. The respondent filed a final report against the appellant and the other accused under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998 and IPC. The gist of the final report is that the appellant is the first accused in R.C.No.38/A/2002 of SPE:CBI:ACB:Chennai, in C.C.No.05 of 2004. The appellant/first accused joined the Customs Department as Appraiser during 1981 and was posted at Mumbai. He was promoted as Assistant Collector of Customs in the year 1991 and was posted to Tirunelveli and Madurai, Central Excise Commissionerates. In 1992, he was again posted to Mumbai as Assistant Collector of Customs and in October 1998, he was posted to Chennai. He worked as Deputy Commissioner, Chennai – II, Central Excise Commissionerate. His father K.Raman was a small time agriculturist. He had two wives, Kali and Nagammal. Appellant is the son born to Kali. Appellant had three sisters, who are no more and one step brother and sister. His father K.Raman died in 1998 at the age of 75. Appellant married the second accused Chellammal in 1970. Second accused is the only daughter of Sathayeeammal, a divorcee, who was running a small provision shop in Chithoor, Ramanathapuram District. Accused 1 and 2 have three daughters, namely, V.Rani/A3, V.Jayanthi/A4 and V.Jothilakshmi/A5, who were born in 1972, 1974 & 1976 respectively. Subsequent to the registration of the case, the residential premises of the appellant in Chennai and native place were searched on 09.08.2002. During the search, documents showing the purchase of properties were seized from the residence and the documents giving details of expenditure incurred on the purchase of movable assets like Cars, Air conditioners etc., were also recovered. Inventory of the household articles including gold ornaments were also prepared. In 1981, appellant had shown the property of his father situated at Muthuvayal Village, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District to the extent of 3.5 acres of wet land and 4.0 acres of dry land. His father was shown as his dependent. The house constructed in the name of his wife at No.12, first main road, Anna Nagar, Pattabiram, Avadi, Chennai was also declared in the return of assets. He had not declared the other properties in the name of his daughters, his father and his wife in the annual property return. The check period was taken from 01.01.1986 to 09.08.2002.
(i) Assets acquired by appellant in the name of his family members including his father at the beginning of the check period are given in Statement 'A'. The value of the total assets works out to Rs.1,94,680/-.
(ii) Assets acquired by appellant in the name of his family members including his father during the check period are shown in Statement 'B'. The value of the total assets both movable and immovable works out to Rs.75,65,964/-
(iii) Income earned by appellant in the name of his family members during the check period are shown in Statement 'C'. It works out to Rs.49,26,516/-.
(iv) Expenditure incurred by appellant in the name of his family members during the check period are shown in Statement 'D'. It works out to Rs.26,65,304/-.
3. Appellant fraudulently and dishonestly opened a Savings bank account on 21.08.2000, bearing No.8723, in the Corporation Bank, Mylapore Branch, Chennai, in the name of hi
Bail – Pre-trial punishment is not required.
The court reaffirmed the significance of lawful procedures in asset seizure under the Prevention of Corruption Act, emphasizing the requirement for evidentiary clarity regarding asset ownership.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for valid sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, as well as the importance of accurate valuation of assets and properties....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.