Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Mr. Justice G. Ilangovan, J
N.J.Selvakumar – Appellant
Versus
State rep. by Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
G.Ilangovan, J.
This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in Special Case No.05 of 2015 by the Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil, dated 23/07/2019.
2.The case of the prosecution in brief:-
The accused was working as Senior Pharmacist in the Medical Service from 01/08/1995 to 31/03/2000. During that period, he acquired and in possession of pecuniary resources and the property in his name and in the name of his wife, which were disproportionate to his known source of income to the tune of Rs.5,17,395.17/-. Based upon this, a case in Crime No.3 of 2003 was registered by the respondent police for the offence punishable under section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After completion of the investigation, final report was filed. It was taken on file by the Special Judge-cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil in Special Case No.3 of 2007. After completing 207 Cr.P.C proceedings, the following amended charge was framed against the accused, on 18/02/2015:-
“The accused joined as Pharmacist in Tamil Nadu Health Department in Mahabalipuram on 20/10/1984, serving various posts in various place
The prosecution must prove disproportionate assets beyond reasonable doubt, allowing a 10% margin for known income, which was not established in this case.
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that a public servant possesses assets disproportionate to their known income.
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 court reaffirmed the significance of lawful procedures in asset seizure under the Prevention of Corruption Act, emphasizing the requirement for evidentiary clarity regarding asset ownership.
The court ruled that a special judge's discharge finding is flawed if it performs a mini trial rather than evaluating evidence for the basis of accusations, necessitating a trial.
The court clarified that for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution must demonstrate clear excess assets beyond known income, while the burden of explanation shifts to t....
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
