Back
to Review Ex-DGP Thachankary's Appeal Alleging
Former Director General of Police (DGP) Tomin J Thachankary has moved the to overturn his conviction and four-year rigorous imprisonment sentence in a case, arguing that the trial court committed a "" and relied on "incorrect calculations" by investigating officers. The appeal, filed on Friday, will be heard by a single bench of Justice A Badharudeen on , along with a separate bail petition seeking .
The , KV Rajaneesh, had on Thursday convicted Thachankary under . The trial court found that between , and , Thachankary—while serving as a senior police officer—acquired and possessed assets worth ₹64,70,891, disproportionate to his by 135.80%. After granting the established through evidence, the court reduced the excess to 52.33% of his known income, imposing a fine of ₹30,84,892—the exact amount of determined.
Thachankary was taken into custody following the verdict and lodged at Poojappura Central Jail. He was later shifted to the prison's hospital block after complaining of health issues, where he remains under medical observation.
Grounds of Appeal: Faulty Calculations and Ignored Evidence
In his appeal, Thachankary contends that the conviction is "unsustainable and illegal." The petition alleges that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the evidence and erroneously adopted the investigating officers' calculations. Specifically, he claims that rental income and sale proceeds from certain properties were wrongly computed, and that the court erroneously determined his legal rights over a property that had already been sold—ignoring that the sale proceeds were credited to his bank account on the date of sale.
A major thrust of the appeal is that the income earned by Thachankary's wife from her business and agricultural properties was not taken into consideration. According to the petition, his wife owned substantial landed property that was sold during the
for several crores of rupees, yet the sale proceeds were excluded from the income calculation.
"The trial court, through
on record and by relying merely on erroneous calculations made by the investigating officers, found him guilty of the offence,"
the appeal states.
The case has a tangled procedural history. The FIR, originally registered by the in , covered assets allegedly amassed between , and , and was later extended to . After investigation, a final report was filed, and the case was transferred between vigilance courts before being taken up by the Kottayam court in .
Thachankary had previously complained that several items of his income had not been accounted for, prompting the state government to order a . However, the quashed that order, holding that the government could not direct such a probe, though it allowed the investigating agency to use material collected during the . Thachankary now alleges that none of those documents were produced before the trial court despite his application under .
During trial, when questioned under , Thachankary denied the incriminating circumstances and filed a further statement explaining what he claimed were errors in the calculations and the circumstances in which he was falsely implicated.
Legal Analysis: Burden of Proof and Appellate Scrutiny
The case raises significant questions about the in cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution must establish that the public servant is in possession of assets disproportionate to his . Once that is shown, the to satisfactorily account for the excess. Thachankary's appeal challenges the foundational calculations—arguing that the investigating officers' figures were incorrect and that his wife's independent income was omitted.
The appellate court will examine whether the trial court's findings are or based on a misreading of evidence. The has previously held that in corruption cases, the computation of income and assets must be accurate and comprehensive, and that the accused must be given full opportunity to explain discrepancies. If Thachankary can demonstrate that the trial court ignored material evidence—such as the sale proceeds and wife's business income—the conviction may be vulnerable.
The appeal also highlights the tension between the state's power to order and the accused's right to a . The quashing of the order by the High Court, while allowing use of collected material, created an unusual situation where documents favorable to the defence may have been excluded. The appellate court will need to assess whether the non-production of those documents prejudiced Thachankary's case.
Impact on Legal Practice and Corruption Prosecutions
This appeal will be closely watched by the legal community, as it touches upon procedural fairness in corruption trials against high-ranking public servants. If the High Court finds merit in Thachankary's arguments, it could set a precedent for stricter scrutiny of asset calculations in cases, particularly regarding the inclusion of spousal income and the proper accounting of sale proceeds.
The case also underscores the importance of accurate documentation during investigation. The allegations of incorrect calculations and failure to produce may prompt courts to demand greater transparency from investigating agencies. Additionally, the issue of and the admissibility of its results will likely be clarified, providing guidance for future cases.
Thachankary's bail application, which will be heard alongside the appeal, adds urgency. Given his health concerns and the non-violent nature of the offence, the court may consider suspending the sentence pending appeal. However, the trial court had rejected leniency, observing that Thachankary's position as a senior police officer warranted a stern response given the magnitude of abuse of power.
Conclusion
As the prepares to hear the appeal on , the legal fraternity awaits a decision that could shape the contours of disproportionate asset litigation. Thachankary's challenge—rooted in allegations of misread evidence and miscalculated figures—places the spotlight on the integrity of the investigative process and the rights of the accused. Whether the High Court will find grounds to overturn the conviction or uphold the trial court's verdict remains to be seen, but the case undoubtedly carries significant implications for the fight against corruption in public office.
