CRL.A.No.595 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on : 22.11.2022

Pronounced on : 30.08.2023

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

CRL.A.No.595 of 2018

P.Pandian

... Appellant

Vs.

State Re.by

Inspector of Police,

SPE:CBI/ACB, Chennai

RC MA1 2009-A-0022

... Respondent

PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of

Criminal Procedures, to set-aside the order in C.C.No.37 of 2009, dated

26.09.2019 on the file of the 14^th Additional Special Court for CBI.

For Appellant

:

Mr.Infant Dinesh

For Respondent

:

Mr.K.Srinivasan

Spl.PP (CBI Cases)

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal arises out of conviction and sentence

imposed by the learned XIV Additional Special Judge (CBI Cases), XIV

1/26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.No.595 of 2018

Additional City Civil Court, Chennai in C.C.No.367 of 2009, dated

26.09.2019, wherein the appellant was convicted for offence under

Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and

sentenced to undergo four years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a

fine of Rs.3,00,000/-, in default, to undergo one year Simple

Imprisonment.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant joined in

Employees Provident Fund Organization, Chennai, as Lower Division

Clerk on 10.07.1975, promoted as Upper Division Clerk on 18.09.1980,

promoted as Head Clerk on 14.05.1995 and further promoted as

Assistant Accounts Officer on 21.10.2005. Subsequently, he has been

redesignated as Enforcement Officer on 28.05.2007 and was working as

Enforcement Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional

Office, Chennai. The appellant married one Vennila on 24.05.1981, who

is a matriculate and a housewife. The appellant has two sons namely,

P.Pranesh Kumar and P.Mahesh.

3. The respondent received reliable information about appellant,

and his family members acquired assets disproportionate to his income,

preliminary enquiry conducted, thereafter, FIR registered and the check-

period was fixed for the period from 01.01.2002 to 30.09.2006. During

2/26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.No.595 of 2018

investigation, the appellant and his family members were found in

possession of immovable and movable assets at the beginning of the

check period to the tune of Rs.10,64,404/-, which is reflected in

Statement 'A'; at the end of check period, the appellant and his family

members were found in possession of immovable and movable assets to

the tune of Rs.70,25,867/-, which is reflected in statement 'B'; during

the check period, the appellant and his family members had income to

the tune of Rs.56,97,574/- from all known source of income, which is

reflected in Statement 'C' and during the check period, the appellant and

his family members incurred a total expenditure of Rs.22,50,406/-, which

is reflected in Statement 'D'. Thus, the appellant was found to amass

wealth and assets, which are disproportionate to his known source of

income, to an extent of Rs.25,16,295/-, which is around 44.16%.

4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet filed against the

appellant and his wife Vennila, for offence under Sections 109 IPC., r/w.

Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The

appellant and his wife on their appearance before the trial Court filed

discharge petition in Crl.M.P.No.2076 of 2010 and Crl.M.P.No.973 of

2010. The discharge petition of the appellant was dismissed and as

regards A2 / Vennila, the petition was allowed by the trial Court and she

was discharged from the case.

3/26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.No.595 of 2018

5. Against which, the respondent CBI preferred a Revision in

Crl.R.C.No.1115 of 2011 before this Court and this Court by an order

dated 02.07.2012, confirmed the order of discharge finding that two of

the properties in Statement 'A' and firs