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.

JUDGMENT

A. The Appeal:-

This Criminal Appeal challenges the judgment of the learned XIII Additional Special Judge / Special Court for CBI Cases, Chennai, dated 18.04.2015, in C.C.No.15 of 2002. The trial court found the appellant / accused No.1 guilty of an offense under Section 13 (2) read with (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 , and sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.50,000/-; failing to pay the fine, he was to serve an additional six months of simple imprisonment. Additionally, the court ordered the confiscation of disproportionate assets accumulated by the appellant, totaling Rs.12,72,961/-, in favor of the government. Regarding this amount, the court directed that Rs.5,03,000/- and Rs.7,40,850/- seized from the accused be appropriated, and the remaining Rs.29,111/- be returned to the first accused.

B. Case of the Prosecution:

2. The case of the prosecution is that the 1 accused/appellant was a public servant, st working as Assistant Commissioner of Customs at Mumbai in 1998. On 11.01.1998, when he alighted from a flight from Mumbai to Chennai at Meenambakkam Airport, CBI officials searched him based on information. At that time, Rs.5,03,000/- in cash was seized from him. Further enquiry revealed that the accused joined the service in 1982 as an Appraiser and became an Assistant Commissioner of Customs in 1992. He was working in Mumbai and Chennai from 1982 to January 1988. During this period, he received a total income of Rs.28.86 lakhs from all known sources and had an expenditure of about Rs.4.46 lakhs, leaving savings of Rs.24.40 lakhs. However, the accused was found in possession of assets worth Rs.36.33 lakhs as of the check period, i.e., on 19.01.1998. Therefore, there was a disproportionate asset of Rs.11.93 lakhs. Accordingly, a case was registered in RC MA No.1/1998 A 0014 on 12.03.1998 - Ex.P163 by P.W.75 – Prabakaran. He subsequently completed the investigation and filed a final report, proposing the appellant and his wife guilty. The case was taken on file as C.C.No.15 of 2002.

C. Charges levelled against the accused:

3. The following two charges were framed against the 1st accused / appellant and his wife – Bharathi Asokan, the 2nd accused,

“Firstly, that you A1 and 2 during the period of 01-9-1989 and 19-01-98 at chennai, Mumbai and other places agreed to do or caused to be done an Illegal act namely criminal misconduct and in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy you A1 abusing or misusing your official position of by corrupt or illegal means acquired pecuniary assets as mentioned in the charge sheet in your name and in the name of your family members to a tune of Rs.21.40,140.39P. which is disproportionate to the known sources of your income and you A1 and A2 could not satisfactorily explain the said disproportionate assets of Rs.21.40,140.39 P. and you A2 in pursuance of the conspiracy allowed A1 for acquiring the assets in your name out of illgotten money and thereby you A1 and A2 committed offence punishable U/s 120- B r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of PC Act, 1988 and within my cognizance.

Secondly, that you A1 being a public servant employed as Appraiser and Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, at Mumbai, Chennai and other places during the period between 01-9-89 and 19-1-98 acquired assets which were disproportionate to your known sources of income and on or about 19-01- 1998 you had been in possession of pecuniary resources of Property in your name and in the name of your wife A2 and family members as detailed mentioned in the charge sheet to the extent of Rs.21,40,140.39P. which were disproportionate to your known sources of income a