JAGAN M SESHADRI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the allegations that during the check period from 11-5-1977 to 31-3-1984, the appellant, who, at the relevant time, was serving as a Superintendent of Police, had acquired assets disproportionate to his known source of income, First Information Report was lodged on 18-6-1986 by the Superintendent of Police, Western Range, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Madras alleging commission of offence under S. 5(1)(d) and (e) read with S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The appellant, after the prosecution obtained requisite sanction, was sent up for trial. Charges were framed and evidence was led. The learned IVth Additional Special Judge, Madras, on appreciation of evidence, both documentary and oral, vide judgment dated 9-7-1990, acquitted the appellant of all the charges by a detailed judgment. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal recorded by the learned IVth Addl. Special Judge, the State filed an appeal against the acquittal of appellant before the High Court of Madras. By an order dated 24-12-1988, the High Court accepted the appeal of the State and reversed the order of acquittal of the appellant. The appellant was convicted for offence under S. 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with S. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in defalt to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

(2.) The High Court, thereafter analysed the evidence of the record de novo and observing that the lower Court had not properly appreciated vital circumstances of the case, went on to hold :

(3.) A perusal of the judgment of the High Court reveals that High Court has failed to deal with various reasons given by the trial Court in support of an order of acquittal. It is apparent from the terms and tenor of the impugned judgment that High Court was influenced by the phraseology of S. 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act, which,except for the explanation as added to that section, is in pari materia with S. 5(1)(e) of the 1947 Act. High Court has pressed into aid the explanation to S. 13(1)(e) of the Act to hold the appellant guilty. For what follows the approach of the High Court is erroneous.