The court emphasized that public servants must satisfactorily account for assets acquired during their tenure, and joint ownership does not exempt several parties from prosecution under the PC Act when corruption is implied.

JUDGMENT

(Common Prayer: Criminal Revision Petitions filed under Sections 397 r/w. 401 of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE , to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No/2564 of 2020, Cr.M.P.No.6927 of 2019 and Cr.M.P.No.7326 of 2018 in C.C.No.10 of 2018 dated 07.02.2022 passed by learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, VIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai and discharge the petitioners.)

Common Order:

1. The petitioners M.Thangavel/A1, P.Vijayalakshmi/A2 and M.Marichamy/A3 in C.C.No.10 of 2018 pending on the file of the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, VIII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai challenging the dismissal of discharge petitions in Crl.M.P.No/2564 of 2020, Cr.M.P.No.6927 of 2019 and Cr.M.P.No.7326 of 2018 by a common order dated 07.02.2022, filed the above revision petitions.

2. Since the defence and grounds raised by the petitioners are similar, a common order is being passed. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the petitioners are referred to as per their rankings in the Calendar Case.

3. A case in RC MA1 2016 A 0048 was registered by the CBI/ACB, Chennai on 27.12.2016 against A1 and A2 for the offence under Section 109 IPC and Section 13 (2) read with 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as ''PC Act, 1988'']. A1 was working as Section Supervisor, Employees Provident Fund Organization [EPFO], Regional Office, Chennai, A2 was working as Senior Accountant General, Grade II in the Office of the Accountant General [AGs Office], Teynampet, Chennai and A3, younger brother of A1 and brother-in-law of A2 started a firm in the name of M/s.Efficient Management Consultant [EMC] in the year 2004, the same was subsequently converted into a partnership firm including one T.Rahul, Son of A1 and A2, E.Kanniyammal, mother-in-law and mother of A1 and A2. Further, A3 along with one D.Ravichandran, friend of A1 started a partnership firm in the name of M/s.EMC HR Solutions and these firms were functioning in CIT Nagar premises of the accused and providing Pay roll, Consultant for remittance of EPI, ESIC, placement training and HR related statutory consultancy services, etc. Initially in the FIR, the check period was taken from 01.12.2011 to 09.12.2016, during investigation it was found that most of the properties were acquired during the year 2010 and hence, the check period was taken from 23.07.2010 to 09.12.2016. At the beginning of check period as on 23.07.2010, both A1 and A2 possess movable and immovable assets to the tune of Rs.31,94,408.24/- and at the end of the check period as on 09.12.2016, they were in possession of movable and immovable assets to the tune of Rs.2,55,73,648.73/-. During the check period the income of both A1 and A2 was to the tune of Rs.1,56,21,341.90/- and the expenditure during the check period was to the tune of Rs.1,14,68,288.22/-. Hence, at the end of the check period it was found that A1 and A2 amassed disproportionate asset in their name to the tune of Rs.1,82,26,186.81/- i.e., 116.67%. It was also found that various transactions were made by A1 and A2 in purchasing plot at Old No.71, New No.28, 1st Cross Street, CIT Nagar, Chennai – 35 measuring 1302 sq.ft. For Rs.93 lakhs and construction was made by A1 and A2. Further A2 provided incorrect particulars to her Department regarding this transaction. The accused were given oppo