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 in cases involving allegations of disproportionate assets.

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 Vennila on 24.05.1981, who is a matriculate and a housewife. The appellant has two sons namely, P.Pranesh Kumar and P.Mahesh.

3. The respondent received reliable information about appellant, and his family members acquired assets disproportionate to his income, preliminary enquiry conducted, thereafter, FIR registered and the checkperiod was fixed for the period from 01.01.2002 to 30.09.2006. During investigation, the appellant and his family members were found in possession of immovable and movable assets at the beginning of the check period to the tune of Rs.10,64,404/-, which is reflected in Statement ''A''; at the end of check period, the appellant and his family members were found in possession of immovable and movable assets to the tune of Rs.70,25,867/-, which is reflected in statement ''B''; during the check period, the appellant and his family members had income to the tune of Rs.56,97,574/- from all known source of income, which is reflected in Statement ''C'' and during the check period, the appellant and his family members incurred a total expenditure of Rs.22,50,406/-, which is reflected in Statement ''D''. Thus, the appellant was found to amass wealth and assets, which are disproportionate to his known source of income, to an extent of Rs.25,16,295/-, which is around 44.16%.

4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet filed against the appellant and his wife Vennila, for offence under Sections 109 IPC., r/w. Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant and his wife on their appearance before the trial Court filed discharge petition in Crl.M.P.No.2076 of 2010 and Crl.M.P.No.973 of 2010. The discharge petition of the appellant was dismissed and as regards A2 / Vennila, the petition was allowed by the trial Court and she was discharged from the case.

5. Against which, the respondent CBI preferred a Revision in Crl.R.C.No.1115 of 2011 before this Court and this Court by an order dated 02.07.2012, confirmed the order of discharge finding that two of the properties in Statement ''A'' and first property in Statement ''B'' were purchased by A2 prior to the check period, out of her own source of income, in the year 1995, and the said properties were sold for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-, out of which, after clearing the debts of Rs.7,00,000/-, A2 was with Rs.18,13,840/- and she purchased the property No.1, reflected in Statement ''B'' for Rs.10,08,000/- and further, she was left with balance amount of Rs.18,13,840/- which could have been used for construction purpose of the House in Uthandi property. Thereafter, the appellant had filed a petition under Section 216 Cr.P.C., to alter the charges in Crl.M.P.No.791 of 2012, to delete Item Nos.1 & 2 pertaining to the appellant''s wife Vennila from the charges already