Madras High Court
N.J.Selvakumar vs The State Rep. By on 31 October, 2018
Crl.A(MD)No.527 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date of Reserved 27/01/2025
Date of Pronounced 24/02/2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.A(MD)No.527 of 2018
N.J.Selvakumar : Appellant/Sole Accused
Vs.
The State rep. by
Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District. : Respondent/Complainant
Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section
374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the
judgment of conviction, dated 31/10/2018 made in Special
Case No.3 of 2007 on the file of the Special Judge-cum-
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil and sentence imposed
on the appellant and acquit the appellant and pass such
further or other orders.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Anand
for Mr.S.Sathiya Chidambaram
For Respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
Additional Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 06:35:59 pm )
1/27
Crl.A(MD)No.527 of 2018
J U D G M E N T
This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment
of conviction and sentence passed in Special Case No.05 of
2015 by the Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Nagercoil, dated 23/07/2019.
2.The case of the prosecution in brief:-
The accused was working as Senior Pharmacist in the
Medical Service from 01/08/1995 to 31/03/2000. During that
period, he acquired and in possession of pecuniary
resources and the property in his name and in the name of
his wife, which were disproportionate to his known source
of income to the tune of Rs.5,17,395.17/-. Based upon this,
a case in Crime No.3 of 2003 was registered by the
respondent police for the offence punishable under section
13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988. After completion of the investigation, final report
was filed. It was taken on file by the Special Judge-cum-
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil in Special Case No.3
of 2007. After completing 207 Cr.P.C proceedings, the
following amended charge was framed against the accused, on
18/02/2015:-
“The accused joined as
Pharmacist in Tamil Nadu Health
Department in Mahabalipuram on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 06:35:59 pm )
2/27
Crl.A(MD)No.527 of 2018
20/10/1984, serving various posts in
various places; As per the statement of
the assets and liabilities as on
01/08/1995, as per Statement-I was
estimated at Rs.2,52,165.11/- in the
name of the accused and his wife name;
As per the amendment statement-II as on
31/03/2000, he was having income
estimated at Rs.8,65,516.66/-; The known
source of income of the accused and his
wife as on 31/03/2000, as per the
amended Statement-III was estimated at
Rs.5,95,603.00/-; As per Statement-IV,
the expenditure has been estimated at
Rs.4,99,646.62/-; The savings was
estimated at Rs.95,956.38/- as per
Statement VI; As per the amended
Statement-V, the total assets and
liabilities of the accused and his wife
was estimated at Rs.6,13,351.55/-; As
per the Statement-VII, the
disproportionate asset was estimated at
Rs.5,17,395.17/- and thereby, the
accused committed an offence punishable
under section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.”
3.To that charge, the accused pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 06:35:59 pm )
3/27
Crl.A(MD)No.527 of 2018
4.During the trial process, on the side of the
prosecution, 36 witnesses have been examined and 68
documents marked. On the side of the accused, one witness
was examined and 4 documents marked.
5.PW34 was working as Inspector of Police attached
to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department,
Kanyakumari. They received reliable information that the
accused amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source
of income. Based upon which, he registered a case in Crime
No.4 of 2003 under section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act and submitted the FIR to the
Court and the further investigation was handed to Sundar
Rajan, Inspector of Police. In the information, it was
stated that the accused was working as Pharmacist in the
Government Hospital, Kuzhithurai, During the check in
period between 01/08/1995 and 31/03/2000, he amassed wealth
to the tune of Rs.5,17,395-17/-. Before that, he conducted
a preliminary enquiry on the basis of the reliable
information and submitted a report. Upon which, the case
was registered.
6.PW35 took up the further investigation. He
perused the records and recorded the statement of the
witnesses. On 22/01/2004, he sent request to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 06:35:59 pm )
4/27
Crl.A(MD)No.527 of 2018
Superintendent Engineer, TNEB and Assistant Director of
Land Survey Department requesting two official witnesses
for assisting the investigation. At the request made by
him, one Valan Arasu and Nambu Visvanathan appeared before
him and prepared a report for making search in the house of
the accused, sent intimation to the concerned Court. On
23/01/2004 at about 02.00 pm, he went to the house of the
accused along with the Vigilance Officials and prepared the
inventory of the articles found in the house and other
records and registers, passport etc. He prepared mahazar
under Ex.P44 and seized 60 sovereigns of gold jewels from
almirah and 9 sovereigns of gold jewels owned by the
accused’s wife. After making all those investigations, he
collected assets and liabilities during the check in
period. From his assessment, he came to know that during
the check in period, the accused has drawn Rs.6,93,262/-.
Expenses were estimated at Rs.4,99,646.62/-. Savings were
estimated at Rs.1,93,615.38/-. From the above said
calculation, he found that the disproportionate asset was
Rs.6,33,144.62/-. So, notice was issued to him, on
24/06/2004 under Ex.P61. The accused sent explanation, on
02/08/2004 under Ex.P62. From the perusal of the
explanation offered by the accused, some of the items were
accepted. Again another notice was issued, on 28/02/2005
under Ex.P63.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 06:35:59 pm )
5/27
Crl.A(MD)No.527 of 2018
7.He submitted the final explanation. After perusal
and making reassessment, he assessed the disproportionate
asset as Rs.5,17,395.17/-. He submitted a report to the
Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department. Then,
he collected the relevant records from various Departments.
Later, he was transferred.
8.The further investigation was taken by PW36. He
perused the records, again enquired the witnesses already
examined by his predecessor and finding that the records
and statements were in order, he submitted a proposal for
obtaining sanction order. After getting sanction order,
completed the investigation and filed final report, on
13/07/2007.
9.PW1 is the sanctioning authority, who issued
sanction order under ExP1.
10.PW2 has spoken about the salary particulars of
the accused during the relevant period and assets and
liabilities statement submitted by the accused, which was
in turn handed over to the Investigating Officer.
11.After closure of the prosecution evidence, when
the accused was questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 06:35:59 pm )
6/27
Crl.A(MD)No.527 of 2018
incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he
denied the same.
12.At the conclusion of the trial process, the
trial court convicted the accused for the offences under
sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1998, sentenced him to undergo 3 years RI and imposed
a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo one year SI
for each offence and directed the sentences to run
concurrently.
13.Against which, this criminal appeal is preferred
by the appellant.
14.Heard both sides.
15.We will straightway go to the initial estimate
made in the final report, upon which the original charge,
dated 04/04/2008 was framed.
16.The difference between the original charge and
the amended charge can be tabulated hereunder so that it
can be appreciated properly.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 06:35:59 pm ) 7/27 Crl.A(MD)No.527 of 2018 Statement Original Charge Amended Charge (Estimation) (Estimation) Statement-I 38,656.66 2,52,165.11 Statement-II - 8,65,516.66 Statement-III 6,93,262.00 5,95,603.00 Statement-IV 4,99,646.62 4,99,646.62 Statement-V 8,26,760.00 6,13,351.55 Statement-VI 1,93,615.38 95,956.38 Statement-VII 6,33,144.62 5,17,395.17 Total 28,85,055.28 34,39,634.49
17.From the comparative statement of the original
charge and the amended charge figures, it shows that though
difference between these two charges in respect of the
Statement-VII comes around Rs.1,15,749.45/-, there is
omission in the original charge with regard to the
Statement-II. This, according to the appellant, is per se
illegal and no opportunity was given to the appellant
herein to put forth his argument with regard to the amended
charge.
18.Apart from that, it is also submitted that after
amendment of the charge, witnesses were not recalled and
re-examined on the side of the prosecution. So, the
appellant has also lost the right of making defence in
respect of the amended charge by way of cross examining
many witnesses. This was the first preliminary objection
made by the appellant. But for which, the appellant has to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 06:35:59 pm )
8/27
Crl.A(MD)No.527 of 2018
blame himself for the issue. Proper application was made by
the prosecution to amend the charge. After hearing both
sides, that application was allowed. Since there was no
revision by the appellant, that order has became final. In
pursuance of the above said order only, the amended charge
was framed. The accused was put on the question, he denied
the charge as usual. But unnecessary application took out
by the appellant to summon the Director of Vigilance and
Anti-Corruption Wing. That application came to be dismissed
by this court. Against which, revision was preferred. It
was also dismissed. The problem arose for the appellant in
not engaging the Legal Practitioner. It appears that at one
point of time, he was represented by an Advocate, later he
thought it fit to defend the case as party-in-person. This
is the reason for him to unnecessarily drag on the matter
to unknown direction. He ought to have challenged the
application filed by the prosecution for amendment of the
charge. Having lost that opportunity, having participated
in the further proceedings, it may not be proper on his
part to blame the Court. This ground is not available to
him. So, it has to be rejected outright.
19.But, as mentioned above, in the original charge,
an important point with regard to the figure mentioned in
Statement-II was not mentioned. Later it was corrected.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 06:35:59 pm )
9/27
Crl.A(MD)No.527 of 2018
20.With this in mind and the background facts, let
us go further.
21.Apart from that, another preliminary objection
that was made by the appellant is that the second show
cause notice was issued to him by the Investigating
Officer, for which, he sent a reply, that was not
considered by the Investigating Officer. That file is
marked as Ex.P62 on the side of the prosecution. Here also,
there is some discrepancy in the figure in the show cause
notice dated 20/06/2004 under Ex.P61, wherein the
disproportionate asset was estimated at Rs.6,33,144.62/-,
which was the original charge as mentioned above. For that
show cause notice, the accused submitted reply under
Ex.P62. He has given his own estimation. We will deal about
that category wise later.
22.Now, according to the appellant, this
explanation was not considered by the Investigating Officer
and filed the final report.
23.Now, we will go to the evidence of the
Investigating Officer on this aspect.
24.PW36 was the final Investigating Officer. He
filed the final report. The date of final report is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 06:35:59 pm )
10/27
Crl.A(MD)No.527 of 2018
13/07/2007. The date of sanction order is dated 20/03/2007.
The date of explanation for the second show cause notice is
dated 02/08/2004. He would say that he did not examine and
enquire the accused. On the contra, he would say that since
the accused already submitted his explanation, he did not
make any enquiry with him. Before filing the final report,
it is the duty of the final Investigating Officer to verify
the explanation offered by the accused. In the explanation,
he has not stated anything as to the verification made by
him in respect of the points mentioned in the explanation.
Not even, he has stated during the course of the evidence
that the particulars mentioned by the accused in the second
show cause notice, explanation was found to be incorrect.
So, PW36 failed in his duty in not considering the
explanation offered by the appellant.
25.Now we will go to the evidence of the first
Investigating Officer namely PW35. He would say that in
pursuance of the show cause notice, dated 24/06/2004, the
accused submitted the explanation on 02/08/2004. After
perusing the explanation offered by the accused, it was
found that some of the particulars mentioned by him were
acceptable. So, those explanations were accepted, later by
letter, dated, 28/02/2005 another show cause notice was
issued, for which the accused submitted his reply on
15/03/2005. After perusal of the explanation offered by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 06:35:59 pm )
11/27
Crl.A(MD)No.527 of 2018
him, final estimation was made. There is a little bit of
confusion in this regard.
26.When the argument was advanced by the appellant
that the final notice was issued on 28/02/2005, he offered
his explanation on 15/03/2005, but after 15/03/2005, second
explanation was offered by the accused. Probably he is
making some confusion regarding the second explanation
offered by him. So, the matter was reopened for
clarification and the appellant was required to verify
whether the second explanation was offered by him after
15/03/2005. He was referring only the explanation, dated
15/03/2005 and no subsequent to that. So, it is seen that
the explanation, dated 15/03/2005 was taken into account by
PW35 before concluding the estimation.
27.We will take the final explanation, dated
15/03/2005 in the later part of the judgment.
28.Another preliminary point is that PW36 the
Investigating Officer was personally inimical against the
appellant. So, he took much interest in the investigation
and filed the final report. So, according to him, he is
seriously prejudiced. But when this argument was raised
referring to some personal issue, I made it clear to the
appellant that absolutely, there is no evidence in this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 06:35:59 pm )
12/27
Crl.A(MD)No.527 of 2018
regard. Apart from that, it was not the grievance expressed
by him in the reply, dated 15/03/2005 expressing grievance
against the Investigating Officer. This ground is not
available to the appellant, when serious prejudice was not
caused to him during the course of the investigation. So,
this plea is rejected.
29.Another important point is estimation regarding
the house property. In this regard, we will straightaway go
to the evidence of PW36. Ex.P33 is the estimation report.
The estimation was prepared by the Assistant Executive
Engineer, counter signed by the Executive Engineer.
30.Perusal of the estimation report does indicate
that it contains so many corrections, additions, deletions,
which does not bear the certification of the concerned
Officer, who prepared the report, that is the corrections
were not certified by any one. The Investigating Officer
ought to have received proper certification regarding the
corrections. It was not done. Even he went to the extent
of stating that he did not examine the Officer, who
prepared the report. When it contains corrections,
deletion, additions etc., it ought not to have been
accepted as proved document by the trial court. But the
trial court thought it fit to take up as it is and recorded
a finding. The Investigating Officer is only a Collecting
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 06:35:59 pm )
13/27
Crl.A(MD)No.527 of 2018
Officer, who collected the estimation from the concerned
Authority. On that account, Ex.P33 has evidentiary value
has to be taken into account.
31.Another point is that the Investigating Officer
has not mentioned in the final report the percentage of the
disproportionate income. Why he omitted the same is not
explained by him.
32.Now we will go to the item-wise issue. The check
in period is 01/08/1995 to 03/01/2000. During that period,
the accused was working as Pharmacist in Kuzhithurai
Government Hospital, it is not denied and disputed.
33.The Statement-I contains figure as
Rs.2,52,165.11/-. According to the appellant/accused, the
items mentioned in the Statement-I belongs to him and it is
not disputed. But what is denied by him is that some more
properties were available to him in the form of immovable,
cash on hand, the property gifted in his wife’s name. In
respect of the cash on hand issue, the trial court has
recorded a finding that it was not properly established by
the accused. Even before this court, the appellant is not
able to establish that he was having Rs.37,680/- as cash on
hand. So, the finding of the trial court on this aspect
requires no interference.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 06:35:59 pm )
14/27
Crl.A(MD)No.527 of 2018
34.Regarding the installation of pump-set and
construction of compound wall, it was contended by him that
as per Ex.D1, he submitted the approval on 26/06/1995.
Permission was granted on 30/06/1995. The construction must
be completed before 30/06/1996. Even though, it was
submitted by the appellant that the construction was made
on 01/08/1995, but no documentary evidence was produced by
him, the date on which, the construction started, on which
date it was completed. There was no evidence.
35.Now in this aspect, we will go to the evidence
of the Investigating Officer namely PW34. In the plan
approval for the construction, well, compound wall and
pump-set were mentioned. In the explanation offered, the
accused has stated that he constructed a compound wall in
July 1995, which comes around Rs.72,000/-. So, it must be
deducted.
36.Regarding the standing trees, it was submitted
by the appellant that even prior to 01/08/1995, the
properties owned by his wife was having 113 grown up
coconut trees, 300 Rubber trees small in size, 80 grown up
trees.
37.In this regard, we will go to the evidence of
the Investigating Officer as to whether any spot
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 06:35:59 pm )
15/27
Crl.A(MD)No.527 of 2018
verification was made by him in this regard, since there is
specific point raised by the appellant in the explanation.
38.In the explanation, it was stated by him that
Rs.1,45,370/- was received as income by his wife during the
relevant period namely the check in period by selling the
old rubber trees, coconut trees etc. But, as mentioned by
the trial court Ex.P11 does not indicate the availability
of the standing trees. The purchaser was not examined on
the side of the appellant to show that the trees were also
purchased and separately valued. There is no Adangal
produced by the appellant. It is equally seen that the
Investigating Officer has not made any spot visit to the
property to verify the above said issue.
39.PW34 would say that during his enquiry, he found
that there was no income from the agricultural property.
So, he did not obtain any certificate from the Revenue
Authorities. Why he omitted to visit the place and verify
the physical availability of the standing trees was not
explained by him. Even not take care to examine the
purchaser mentioned by the appellant in his explanation.
Why he omitted all these things is not explained.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 06:35:59 pm )
16/27
Crl.A(MD)No.527 of 2018
40.No doubt that it is equally the duty of the
appellant to prove that he was having income from the
agricultural property. But he also failed. But the duty of
the Investigating Officer is more than that of the duty of
the accused to prove the case of the prosecution. It is the
bounden duty equally cast upon both sides. What applies to
the property belongs to the wife is also equally applies to
his property also.
41.Now coming to the Statement-II. The total
estimate is Rs.8,65,516.66/-. The main objection made by
the appellant is with regard to Item Nos.10 & 14.
42.Now we will take up Item No.14 first. It is a
Car bearing No.TN-07-D-6255 standing in the name of the
appellant’s wife. It was estimated at Rs.1,14,003/-. It was
objected by the appellant stating that it was not purchased
during the check in period. Actually, it was purchased on
07/04/2000 and the purchase is after the check in period.
But for valid and cogent reasons, the trial court over
turned the objections. Regarding the value of the purchase,
it calculated the same at Rs.82,000/-.
43.Perusal of the discussion made by the trial
court with reference to the evidence available on record
does indicate that it is a fair discussion and for valid
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 06:35:59 pm )
17/27
Crl.A(MD)No.527 of 2018
reasons, it estimated the purchase price at Rs.82,000/-.
The appellant failed to prove that it was purchased after
the check in period.
44.Now coming to the Item No.10 house property,
site was purchased by the appellant from one Suman. It was
not disputed by him. The site was purchased on 24/10/1990.
The approval was obtained from the concerned authority. Now
estimate was made as mentioned by the concerned authority
at Rs.4,54,293/-.
45.Now coming to the appellant’s case, it is stated
that it ought to have been estimated at Rs.1,00,000/-. But
the trial court has pointed out that in the assets and
liabilities statement additional submitted by the accused
as on 30/04/2001, he has shown the value of the housing
property at Rs.2,52,000/-. It is only an approximate value
mentioned by the appellant. The admitted value can be taken
as estimated value.
46.Now we will go further in detail Ex.P33 the
estimate report.
47.As mentioned above, there are corrections,
deletions, additions, etc, which were not properly
certified. PW19 was examined on the side of the prosecution
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 06:35:59 pm )
18/27
Crl.A(MD)No.527 of 2018
to prove the estimation. But reading of the evidence of
PW19 does not indicate that he personally verified the
calculation. He would say that he was working as Executive
Engineer during the relevant period. He was present in the
place of evaluation made by the Assistant Executive
Engineer by name Srinivasa Sundaram, Assistant Engineer
Sudhakar. According to him, the estimation was prepared on
the basis of the value prevailing in 1995-1996.
48.During the cross examination, he would admit
that the evaluation report was prepared by Srinivasa
Sundaram. It was submitted to him. After scrutiny, he put
his signature and submitted the same. But he has not
specifically stated in the certification corrections,
deletions as mentioned above. The Author of the document
namely Srinivasa Sundaram was not examined on the side of
the prosecution. Even though, PW19 was present at the
time of evaluation, he being the Supervisory Officer might
not have noticed the evaluation in minuets details as made
by Srinivasa Sundaram. So, as I already stated Ex.P33
cannot be taken into account by way of scrutinizing the
evidence of PW19, I reaffirm the said finding that Ex.P33
was not established properly by the prosecution. So, the
cost of construction mentioned by the appellant at
Rs.2,52,000/- can be accepted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 06:35:59 pm )
19/27
Crl.A(MD)No.527 of 2018
49.The second objection made by the appellant in
respect of the Item No.3 in the Statement-II, in Survey
No.101/5 measuring about one Acre, there were standing
trees numbering about 300 rubber trees was suppressed by
the prosecution. The trial court has recorded a finding
that no evidence on the side of the appellant, either oral
or documentary to prove that there were 300 standing Rubber
trees is capable of yielding income. Whether this finding
is proper on record, we can turn to the evidence of PW7.
50.He would say that he was working as Village
Administrative Officer during the relevant period in
Kalkulam village. He issued a certificate of income under
Ex.P16. He would further say that after 1989, about 100
coconut trees were planted and 300 rubber trees before
1995. In 1997 latex were collected from 100 trees. In 1988,
99 and 2000 latex were collected from 150 rubber trees.
Since, at that time, rubber trees were grown up. The
coconut tress become unyielding. So, the coconut trees were
removed. In 2001, the latex were collected from 275 rubber
trees. He gave an opinion that during 1998, 1999 and 2000
there would not have been much income from the rubber
trees, since the return and the expenses would have been
same. In 2001, the appellant received Rs.6,000/- from 275
rubber trees. The properties were standing in the name of
the accused and his wife.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 06:35:59 pm )
20/27
Crl.A(MD)No.527 of 2018
51.But the evidence of PW7 was not taken into
account by the trial court during discussion. It has simply
shifted the burden on the appellant to prove the standing
trees, income, etc.
52.So, from the evidence of PW7, it is seen that
the trees which were standing in survey No.101/5 were not
taken into account by the Investigating Officer, while
making the statement-I. Even the evidence of PW7 regarding
the income also unbelievable one, he is not competent to
speak about the actual income derived by his wife and the
appellant from the standing trees. He has given another
opinion that it would not have given any profit. This
itself shows that he has not given evidence to the court to
resolve the issue, but supported the prosecution case. So,
the opinion given by PW7 regarding the income and the
equalisation of the expenditure and income has to be
rejected. Why this important aspect is omitted to be taken
note by the Investigation and the trial court is not
explained.
53.Now we will go to the evidence of the
Investigating Officer namely PW34. He would say that since
there is no agricultural income, he did not receive any
certificate from the concerned Village Administrative
Officer. This is factually incorrect since PW7 was
examined.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 06:35:59 pm )
21/27
Crl.A(MD)No.527 of 2018
54.Now we will go to the evidence of the further
Investigating Officer namely PW35. He has simply stated
that he has examined one Ganesan regarding the agricultural
income. But as mentioned above, neither in Statement-1 nor
in Statement-II the standing trees and the income were
mentioned. The trial court, without even considering the
evidence of PW7, it has recorded a negative finding. So,
the statement prepared in respect of Statement-1 and II
does not indicate the correct figures. When that was not
indicated the correct figures, there is no occasion for
this court to verify the same. This prima facie defect was
not fairly noticed by the trial court. It has simply
accepted the prosecution version, which in my considered
view is not fair and proper. The Investigating Officer in
all fairness would have obtained proper certificate from
the Rubber Board and approximate income from the grown up
trees, profit, etc. As mentioned above, PW7 is not
competent to speak about all these things. This is the
major defect, this court found while perusing the records.
55.Regarding the Statement-1, it was contended by
the appellant that a sum of Rs.37,680/- was en-cashed by
him from Jenit Bankers before 01/08/1995, kept by him in
cash. But for valid reasons, that contention was rejected
by the trial court. But one thing must be added that the
document under Exs.P57 to P60 ought to have proved by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 06:35:59 pm )
22/27
Crl.A(MD)No.527 of 2018
examining the officials from the Banks, as per the Bankers
Evidence Act. But however, it has been omitted. No
objection was made by the appellant at the time of marking
the document. Of course, the above said contention was
raised, but it came to be rejected, I need not interfere in
that portion.
56.Another contention was with reference to 31
cents situated in Verkilambi village in the name of the
appellant. It was contended that there were 80 standing
rubber trees. That was not included in the Statement-I. PW8
was examined on the side of the prosecution in this regard.
There is no clear evidence on the side of the appellant to
show the correct number of trees planted by him. So, that
contention was also rejected by the trial court for valid
reasons.
57.Regarding the income namely Statement-III, the
trial court has done a meticulous job by taking into the
interest received by the appellant from various savings,
deposits, etc. It finally arrived at the figure of
Rs.7,60,621/-.
58.Now the expenses Statement-IV. Item
Nos.1, 6, 10, 17 to 20 was disputed by the appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 06:35:59 pm )
23/27
Crl.A(MD)No.527 of 2018
59.Now we will see, that was validly satisfied by
him. Item No.1 refers to the expenditure incurred by the
appellant for his domestic purpose. The annual estimate
expenses has been collected as per the price index in the
Statutory Body issued from time to time. It has approximate
value of expenses. Item Nos.4 and 5 are relating to land in
Veeyanoor village standing in the name of the appellant. As
mentioned above, the standing trees were not properly
calculated, estimated in Statement-I. Equally another
mistake has been committed by the prosecution in not
mentioning the correct income in respect of the property
standing in the survey No.101/5.
60.As mentioned above, the trial court has simply
brushed aside that, that was not established by the
appellant. As mentioned above, in all fairness the
Investigating Officer ought to have mentioned the income
derived and the expenses incurred regarding the
agricultural operations. But as mentioned above, the trial
court has committed error in not including the income
derived from the standing trees in Survey No.101/5. Unless
that amount is included, no correct figure can be arrived
at. The question of estimating the income by this appellate
court can not be done in the absence of any clear evidence
as mentioned above. But, as mentioned above, unless the
expenses incurred by the appellant for the agricultural
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 06:35:59 pm )
24/27
Crl.A(MD)No.527 of 2018
operation has been included, the statement cannot be
correct.
61.So, the discussion made above clearly indicates
that statement Nos.1, 2 and 3 were not properly prepared
and submitted by the prosecution. The trial court has also
omitted to take into account the defects pointed by me. In
view of the above said defective statement, the finding
recorded by the trial court that the appellant has amassed
wealth disproportionate to the known source of income is
liable to be set aside giving benefit of doubt.
62.Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
judgment reported in B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and
others (1995)6 SCC 749 held that in cases of amassing
wealth disproportionate to the known source of income under
section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 10%
margin has to be given deduction. If the asset acquired is
more than 10% of the income, then the employee can be held
liable. But here, as mentioned above, I am unable to render
any finding, in view of the above said defects. So, whether
the accused namely the appellant herein was in possession
of asset more than 10% of his income could not be
identified or calculated. On that account, benefit of doubt
is given.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 06:35:59 pm )
25/27
Crl.A(MD)No.527 of 2018
63.In the result, this criminal appeal is allowed.
The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial
court are set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the
charges levelled against him. The fine amount, if any, paid
by the appellant shall be refunded. Bail bond, if any,
executed shall stand discharged.
Index:Yes/No 24/02/2025
Internet:Yes/No
er
To,
1.The Special Judge-cum-
Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Nagercoil.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 06:35:59 pm )
26/27
Crl.A(MD)No.527 of 2018
G.ILANGOVAN,J
er
Crl.A(MD)No.527 of 2018
24/02/2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 06:35:59 pm )
27/27
[ad_1]
Source link