The appellate Court held that the trial Court erred in treating the public servant and his wife as separate entities regarding assets, affirming that the prosecution established disproportionate wealth linked to undisclosed sources.

JUDGMENT :

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

Prayer:- Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., pleased to set aside the judgment of acquittal passed in Special Case No.44 of 2014, dated 18.04.2016 by the Court of Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Villupuram and convict the respondents/accused (A-1 & A-2) as charged.

The Criminal Appeal is filed against the order of acquittal passed by the Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act in Special S.C.No.44 of 2014. The State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, DV&AC, Villupuram, is the appellant. A-1/K.Ponmudi @ Deivasigamani (Public Servant) and A-2/P.Visalakshi the wife of the Public Servant tried for charges under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of P.C Act, 1988 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of P.C Act 1988 r/w 109 of I.P.C respectively are the respondents.

2. A-1/K.Ponmudi @ Deivasigamani was the Minister for Higher Education and Mines, Government of Tamil Nadu, during the year 2006 to 2011. Soon after his party lost the power, case for disproportionate assets was registered against him in Crime No.No.7 of 2011 on 26.09.2011.

3. The final report alleged that, first respondent as M.L.A and Minister for Higher Education and Mines, Government of Tamil Nadu, along with his wife the second respondent during the check period 13.04.2006 to 13.05.2010 acquired assets 65.99% more than their known source of income and could not satisfactorily explain the source. Accordingly, charges were framed and taken up for trial in Special C.C.No.44 of 2015 by the Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act at Villupuram.

4. To substantiate the charges, on the side of the prosecution 39 witnesses (P.W.1 to P.W.39) were examined and 85 Exhibits (Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.85) were marked. To disprove the charges, on the side of the accused 6 documents (Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.6) were marked in the course of the cross examination of prosecution witness. No witness for defence examined.

5. Pending trial, exercising the power under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1944 interim attachment of the respondents properties mentioned in the annexure to the order was passed on 19/07/2013 in Cr.M.P.2115 of 2013. Later, the order of interim attachment was withdrawn vide order dated 24.06.2014. This withdrawal order of the trial Court is challenged by the State and that Appeal is subject matter of C.A.No.679 of 2016.

6. On completion of trial, the trial Court held charges not proved and acquitted both the accused in Special C.C.No.44/2014 on 18th April, 2016.

7. Challenging the order of acquittal, State has preferred the Criminal Appeal.

8. Brief Facts:

Based on informations collected during discreet enquiry followed by detailed enquiry, the First Information Report marked as Ex.P.74 came to be registered on 26.09.2011 against A-1. After giving opportunity to explain the source for their assets, Final Report against A-1 and A-2 filed on 18.07.2012, taking the period 13.04.2006 to 14.05.2011 as the check period. Based on the materials relied by the prosecution, the trial Court framed charges as under:-

Firstly, You, 1st Accused K.Ponmudi alias Deivasigamani, as holding the position as Minister for Higher Secondary Education and Mines, Government of Tamil Nadu, and as Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Member from 13.04.2006 to 13.05.2011, is a person known as Public Servant as defined under Section 2(C) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Tmt.Visalakshi, the 2nd Accused in this case, as an individual, in the capacity of being your wife, is the one living with your support. It was found that wealth disproportionate to the known sources of income has been accumulated, in the names of both of you, the 1st Accused and your wife, during the aforesaid periods and the period from 13.04.2006 to 31.03.2010 was reckoned as Check Period in this case. On a calculation, from the commencement of the Check Period taken as Check Period, viz., from 13.04.2006, the value of the wealth, stood in t