Public servants must account for assets acquired beyond known lawful income, with the burden of proof resting on them, confirming the significance of established evidential standards in corruption cases.

COMMON ORDER

1. These Criminal Revision Petitions arise out of the common order dated 31.01.2017 passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.205 and 206 of 2016 by the Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore.

2. The respondent in Crl.R.C.No.485 of 2017 is arrayed as A2 and the respondent in Crl.R.C.No.486 of 2017 is arrayed as A1.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case in nutshell are as follows :

(i) M.Duraimurugan - A1 was the Minister of Public Works Department, Law and Prisons of Government of Tamil Nadu during the period between 13.05.2006 and 14.05.2011. Hence, he falls within the definition of ‘Public Servant’ as defined under Section 2 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Central Act 49 of 1988) [hereinafter referred to as ‘PC’ Act, 1988 for brevity]. One Shanthakumari - A2 is wife of A1. The check period of A1 and A2 was assessed between 01.04.2007 and 31.03.2009. During the check period, A1 and A2 had acquired and had been in possession of pecuniary resources and properties in their names, which are alleged to be disproportionate assets of their known source of income.

(ii) The prosecution on the basis of credible information had registered a case in Vellore Vigilance and Anti Corruption in Crime No.17 of 2011 against A1 and A2 for the offences punishable under Sections 13 (2) read with 13(1) (e) of PC Act, 1988 and proceeded to investigate the disproportionate wealth acquired by A1 and A2. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer examined 71 witnesses and collected 102 documents. On investigation, it was revealed that at the commencement of check period i.e., on 01.04.2007, A1 and A2 were found to be in possession of pecuniary resources and properties worth about Rs.2,09,20,523/- (Statement-I, as appended to the Charge Sheet) in their names. At the end of the check period i.e., 31.03.2009, they were found to be in possession of pecuniary resources worth about Rs.4,63,38,368/- (Statement-II, as appended to the Charge Sheet) in their names. Thus, during the check period, A1 and A2 had acquired assets and possessed pecuniary resources worth about Rs.2,54,17,845/- (Statement-V, as appended to the Charge Sheet).

(iii) Further, during the check period, the total income earned by A1 and A2 from their known sources of income was Rs.2,90,04,689/- (Statement-III, as appended to the Charge Sheet) and their incurred expenditures to the tune of Rs.1,76,61,018/- (Statement-IV as appended to the Charge Sheet) and thus, had a savings of Rs.1,13,43,671/- (Statement- VI, as appended to the Charge Sheet). Therefore, during the check period, A1 and A2 had acquired pecuniary resources worth about Rs.1,40,74,174/- (Statement –VII, as appended to the Charge Sheet) which are alleged to be disproportionate assets to their known source of income. Even though A2 is an separate income tax assessee and has her own sources of income, she is dependent of her husband (A1), who allowed her husband to acquire assets in her name and thus, she abetted A1 to commit the said offence. Further, sufficient opportunity was given to A1 and A2 to explain their amassing wealth disproportionate to their known sources of income during the check period, but they could not satisfactorily account for it.

(iv) Hence after completion of a fair investigation, the investigating officer filed a charge sheet on 03.01.2013 for the offenc