IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01-12-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY B.Pugazhenthi Petitioner/Appellant Vs State rep.by Inspector of Police, ACB/CBI Chennai.

Respondent/Respondent PRAYER: This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed to (i) review and recall the judgment dated 08.10.2025 in Crl.A.No.323 of 2014;

(ii) to set aside the conviction under Section 13 (2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (iii) in the alternative hold that the proven disproportionate asset being 8.7%, which is well below 20%, which is marginal and acquit the petitioner and pass such further orders.

For Petitioner: Mr.K.N.Nataraaj For Respondent: M/s.N.Baskaran Special Public Prosecutor (CBI cases)

ORDER

This criminal miscellaneous petition is listed under the caption ‘for maintainability’.

2. The Crl.A.No.323 of 2014 was filed against the judgement of the learned XIII Additional Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai made in CC No.38 of 2010. By the said judgment, the petitioner / appellant / accused was convicted for an offence under Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment.

3. After hearing the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor, this Court re-appreciated the evidence in the above Crl.A.No.323 of 2014 and by the judgement delivered on 08.10.2025, the final figures with reference to Statement A, B, C & D were mentioned in paragraph 4.11 and the disproportionate assets after calculation was arrived at Rs.13,55,430/- and the disproportion still at 14.4% more than 10%, the conviction was confirmed. However, the sentence of imprisonment was modified as one year simple imprisonment. After delivery of the said judgment dated 08.10.2025, this application is filed.

4. Heard Mr.K.N.Nataraaj, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the review petitioner.

5. Firstly, the learned Counsel would submit that there is a patent arithmetic error while calculating and arriving at the percentage of disproportionate assets. If an appropriate calculation is done, even by taking the findings in respect of the property that is mentioned as Item No.3, still the disproportionate assets will go less than 10% and the petitioner/appellant/accused be entitled to acquittal. The learned Counsel in this regard, he would rely on the deposition of D.W.7, an official from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. From his evidence, it can be seen that the said property that was dealt with in the judgement as Item No.3 was leased out to Pollution Control Board and the Pollution Control Board was paying the lease rent. Once the Court concludes that the property belongs to the petitioner / appellant / accused, then the rental income received from that property during the relevant period, in all totalling a sum of Rs.3,52,000/- should be added to the income i.e., in Statement ‘C’ during the check period. Similarly, the maintenance in respect of the properties can be up to 30% of the income derived from the property and a sum of Rs.1,18,250/- had to be added in the statement of expenditure. This has not been taken into account by this Court and if the calculation is again made by taking into account of the above, this will have the effect of acquitting the accused. The learned Counsel in support of his submissions would rely upon the judgment in Lily Thomas, Etc Vs. Union of India and others1. The learned Counsel would also rely upon the judgement in Kamlesh Verma Vs.Mayawati and Ors2

6. Per contra, Mr.N.Baskaran, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent relying upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

1AIR 2000 SC 1650

2(2013) 8 SCC 320 India in Raghunath Sharma & Ors., Vs. State of Haryana & Anr.,3 would submit that in view of the bar contained under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the judgments that are relied upon by learn