The trial court erred in acquitting the respondents, as evidence depicted assets acquired disproportionately to known income sources under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 378 (1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, pleased to set aside the common judgment passed in C.C.Nos.88 of 2011 [old C.C.No.10 of 2000] & 89 [Old C.C.No.11/2000], dated 11.01.2012 by the Learned Special Judge for cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai.

Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 (1)(b) of the Cr.P.C., pleased to set aside the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 11.01.2012 in C.C.No.89 of 2011 on the file of the Special Judge for cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai.)

Common Judgment:

The State is the Appellant herein. The respondents 1 and 2 are husband and wife. The first respondent was the Personal Assistant (Private) to the Minister of Social Welfare from 24/06/1991 to 23/03/1994 and 06/05/1994 to 30/04/1996. By the virtue of this post, he fall within the meaning of -Public Servant- as defined under the Prevention of Corruption Act. His pay scale was Rs.1640-60-2600-75-2900 when he joined as P.A to Hon’ble Minister of Social Welfare, Before that he was working as a Clerk in an Advocate Office at Chennai. After joining the Minister he married the second respondent on 21/10/1991. During the mid of 1994 he was terminated, but joined again after a intermission of 6 weeks. On 13/02/1996, in connection with the matter related to M/s.Tamil Nadu Textile Corporation, the residence of the first respondent was searched by the Income Tax Department. During the search Indian and various other foreign countries currencies, gold jewels, high value household articles, deposits and other incriminating documents were seized under mahazar. The Income Tax Department initiated proceedings for undisclosed income and evasion of tax. While so, the Inspector of Police, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-corruption, Chennai, on reliable information registered case against the first respondent on 19/09/1996 in Crime No:RC 4/AC/96/MC I, for offence under Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(e) of P.C Act on being prima facie satisfied that, the first respondent, who hails from a humble background, has acquired about 12 immovable properties, 3 Maruti car, 1 Premier 118 E, 1 Contessa car and a Tata Sumo. He had gone abroad several times and also travelled extensively within India by flight. Comparing to his known source of income, his wealth in hand, style of life and assets in hand indicates abuse of official position to amass wealth disproportionate to the known source of income in his name and in the name of his relatives.

2. As per the order of the Superintendent of Police, DV&AC, Central Range vide letter dated 04/10/1996, investigation of the case in exercise of power under Section 17 Proviso (2) of P.C Act initiated and further vide proceedings dated 04/10/1996 in exercise of power conferred under Section 18 of P.C Act, 1988, the Superintendent of Police authorised Mr.P.V.Thomas, Inspector of Police, Special Unit-III, Chennai, to investigate the case.

3. The investigation subsequently culminated in filing of two final reports. One for the check period from 01/07/1991 to 23/03/1994 and another for the check period 06/05/1994 to 30/04/1996. The final reports were taken on file by the II Additional Sessions Court, Chennai in Special C.C.No.10 of 2000 and Special C.C.No.11 of 2000. Later, transferred to the Special Court for cases under P.C Act and re-numbered as C.C.No.88/2011 and C.C.No.89/2011.

4. C.C.No.88 of 2011 (old C.C.No.10 of 2000):- The charge