Back
M. NIRMAL KUMAR
P. Pandian – Appellant
Versus
State Re. by Inspector of Police, SPE:CBI/ACB, Chennai – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedures, to set-aside the order in C.C.No.37 of 2009, dated 26.09.2019 on the file of the 14th Additional Special Court for CBI.)
This Criminal Appeal arises out of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned XIV Additional Special Judge (CBI Cases), XIV Additional City Civil Court, Chennai in C.C.No.367 of 2009, dated 26.09.2019, wherein the appellant was convicted for offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo four years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,00,000/-, in default, to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant joined in Employees Provident Fund Organization, Chennai, as Lower Division Clerk on 10.07.1975, promoted as Upper Division Clerk on 18.09.1980, promoted as Head Clerk on 14.05.1995 and further promoted as Assistant Accounts Officer on 21.10.2005. Subsequently, he has been redesignated as Enforcement Officer on 28.05.2007 and was working as Enforcement Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Chennai. The appellant married one V
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....
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that a public servant possesses assets disproportionate to their known income.
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.
In a prosecution for the possession of disproportionate assets, once the prosecution proves the public servant's known sources of income and the value of assets found in their possession, the burden ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for public servants to provide a satisfactory explanation for disproportionate assets, the importance of placing the accused's expl....
The trial court erred in acquitting the respondents, as evidence depicted assets acquired disproportionately to known income sources under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
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
