Public servants are liable under the Prevention of Corruption Act for properties acquired in excess of their known income, requiring satisfactory accounting for assets held by family members.

1 These SLPs are filed against the judgment dated 12th April, 2001. When these SLPs were called out Mr. Ramamurthy, Senior Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu, prayed for an adjournment of four weeks. He submitted that, as Accused Nos. 2 to 5 have been acquitted by the impugned Judgment, the State was going to prefer an Appeal against the same Judgment. Mr Rao opposed the Application on the ground that the Petitioner was in jail. He submitted that if the State wanted an adjournment, for such a long period, then the Petitioner should be released on bail. We, therefore, felt that the best course to follow would be to hear these SLPs today. When the State files its Appeal it can be heard separately.

2 Accordingly leave is granted.

3 Heard parties.

4 By these Appeals the Appellant is challenging his conviction under S.13 (1)(e) read with S.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act .

5 Brief facts leading to these Appeals are as follows:
The Appellant was elected as a member of Legislative assembly from Marungapuri constituency in June 1991. He became the Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly on 3rd July, 1991. He was Minister of Education to the Government of Tamil Nadu from 17th May, 1993 to 9th May, 1996. For the sake of convenience this period from 17th May, 1993 to 9th May, 1996 will hereinafter be referred to as the check period.

6 Before the Appellant came to the political arena he was employed as a Lecturer in the Government Arts College. It has been shown that in 1973 the Appellant had taken a crop loan from the Bank of India for a sum of Rs. 13,000/-. That amount had not been repaid by the Appellant. Ultimately a Suit came to be filed and the amount had to be collected in execution of decree in that Suit. In 1985 the Appellant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from R. Palanivelu (P.W.16) who was also working as a Lecturer along with him. For this loan the Appellant had executed a promissory note. The financial condition of the Appellant was such that he was unable to repay the loan. Ultimately a Suit had to be filed against him and a decree came to be passed. Even after passing of the Decree the amount was not repaid. The Decree had to be executed. The decretal amount had to be recovered from the salary of the Appellant. This clearly shows that before he became a Minister the Appellant's financial condition was very weak.

7 At this stage, it must be mentioned that Accused No. 2 is the wife of the Appellant. Accused No.3 is his daughter. Accused No. 2 was and is merely a house wife. She admittedly had only a small agricultural income and no other source of income. Admittedly Accused No. 3 was a student before and during the check period. She had no source of income.

8 Accused No. 4 is the son of the brother of the Appellant. Accused No. 5 is the brother of the Appellant. Accused No. 6 is the Chartered Accountant who had submitted income tax and wealth tax returns of the Accused Nos. 2 to 5.

9 The case of the prosecution was that during the check period the Accused No. 1 acquired, in his name and in the names of Accused Nos. 2 to 5, pecuniary resources and property disproportionate to his known sources of income. The prosecution examined as many as 65 witnesses and got 297 exhibit marks. The Trial Court, on the basis of the evidence lead, acquitted Accused No. 6. However, Accused No. 1 (i.e. the Appellant) was convicted under S.13 (1) (e) read with S.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act . Accused Nos. 2 to 5 were convicted under S.109 I.P.C. and also under S.13(1)(e) read with S.13(2) of the . The Trial Court, after convicting the Accused, directed confiscation of the pecuniary resources and properties to the extant of Rs. 77,49,337.77.

10 Appellant and Accused Nos. 2 to 5 filed Criminal Appeals before the High Court against the conviction as well as against the Order confiscating the pecuniary resources and properties. The High Court disposed of these Appeals by the impugned Judgment dated 12th April, 2001. The High