BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.Ilangovan, J.
N.J.Selvakumar - Appellant
Versus
The State rep. by Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing – Respondents
Crl.A(MD)No.527 of 2018
Decided On : 24-02-2025
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 places; As per the statement of the assets and liabilities as on 01/08/1995, as per Statement-I was estimated at Rs.2,52,165.11/- in the name of the accused and his wife name; As per the amendment statement-II as on 31/03/2000, he was having income estimated at Rs.8,65,516.66/-; The known source of income of the accused and his wife as on 31/03/2000, as per the amended Statement-III was estimated at Rs.5,95,603.00/-; As per Statement-IV, the expenditure has been estimated at Rs.4,99,646.62/-; The savings was estimated at Rs.95,956.38/- as per Statement VI; As per the amended Statement-V, the total assets and liabilities of the accused and his wife was estimated at Rs.6,13,351.55/-; As per the Statement-VII, the disproportionate asset was estimated at Rs.5,17,395.17/- and thereby, the accused committed an offence punishable under section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.”
3.To that charge, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4.During the trial process, on the side of the prosecution, 36 witnesses have been examined and 68 documents marked. On the side of the accused, one witness was examined and 4 documents marked.
5.PW34 was working as Inspector of Police attached to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, Kanyakumari. They received reliable information that the accused amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income. Based upon which, he registered a case in Crime No.4 of 2003 under section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and submitted the FIR to the Court and the further investigation was handed to Sundar Rajan, Inspector of Police. In the information, it was stated that the accused was working as Pharmacist in the Government Hospital, Kuzhithurai, During the check in period between 01/08/1995 and 31/03/2000, he amassed wealth to the tune of Rs.5,17,395-17/-. Before that, he conducted a preliminary enquiry on the basis of the reliable information and submitted a report. Upon which, the case was registered.
6.PW35 took up the further investigation. He perused the records and recorded the statement of the witnesses. On 22/01/2004, he sent request to the Superintendent Engineer, TNEB and Assistant Director of Land Survey Department requesting two official witnesses for assisting the investigation. At the request made by him, one Valan Arasu and Nambu Visvanathan appeared before him and prepared a report for making search in the house of the accused, sent intimation to the concerned Court. On 23/01/2004 at about 02.00 pm, he went to the house of the accused along with the Vigilance Officials and prepared the inventory of the articles found in the house and other records and registers, passport etc. He prepared mahazar under Ex.P44 and seized 60 sovereigns of gold jewels f
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 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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.