Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice P. VELMURUGAN
State Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras – Appellant
Versus
D.Shanthakumari (A2) W/o.Durai Murugan – Respondent
COMMON ORDER
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 C
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 ca....
A public servant and abettors can be tried together for possession of disproportionate assets without a satisfactory account of their sources, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. requires consideration of whether a prima facie case exists; trial court's scrutiny of evidence is improper at this stage.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the charge can be framed based on the possibility of the commission of a crime, even if the case is based on circumstantial evidence. The Cour....
Framing of charge – Even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials and presumptive opinion would enable Court to frame charge against accused.
In assessing disproportionate assets, a public servant's family's income and expenditures can be included for determining asset accumulation.
The necessity of proper evidence evaluation at trial for substantiating income claims in disproportionate assets cases, distinguishing the limited scope of revisional power concerning discharge decis....
The court affirmed that public servants must satisfactorily account for assets; the burden shifts to the accused once disproportionate assets are established by the prosecution.
The conviction of a public servant for possession of disproportionate assets requires the prosecution to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt, including a meticulous evaluation of income, as....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
