STATE Vs. G. EASWARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the final judgment of the High Court of Madras(Crl. O.P. No. 5835 of 2017 dtd. 21/4/2017, wherein the High Court has quashed the C.C. No. 30 of 2013.), by which criminal proceedings against the respondent under Sec. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988(Hereinafter "PC Act".) for possessing assets disproportionate to known sources of income were quashed while exercising jurisdiction under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(Hereinafter "Cr.P.C").

(2.) Facts: The relevant facts are that the respondent joined government service as a surveyor in 1980 and was working as Assistant Director with Nagercoil Local Planning Authority at the relevant time. Upon receipt of a complaint that the respondent is hoarding assets disproportionate to known sources of income earned during check period 1/1/2001 to 31/8/2008, an investigation was conducted, which revealed that he had, in fact, acquired assets worth Rs.26,88,057.00 disproportionate to his income. An FIR bearing number 11/AC/2009/CC-III was registered under Ss. 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the PC Act on 27/7/2009, and the State government granted sanction to prosecute the respondent on 8/7/2013. After investigation, the chargesheet was filed on 23/9/2013.

(3.) The respondent filed a discharge application under Sec. 239 of the Cr.P.C. before the Special Court, Chennai, which came to be dismissed vide order dtd. 27/1/2016. While deciding the discharge application, the Special Court considered the matter in detail and noted that the prosecution has, in fact, accepted the explanation regarding: (i) the valuation of the house owned by the respondent at Poona Nagar and revised the amount from Rs.17,19,541.00 to Rs.10,48,861.00 after leaving out the value of the first floor constructed after the check period; and (ii) value of the asset with respect to the loan of Rs.3,00,000.00 obtained by the respondent's wife for the purchase of a car from Kotak Mahindra. Ultimately, the total value of the disproportionate assets was modified from Rs.43,78,383.00 to Rs.37,07,703.00 and thereafter to Rs.26,88,057..00 On the other hand, the explanation with respect to the non-deduction of the claim of: i) income earned by the wife through real estate business, ii) gift said to have been received by the respondent's daughter from her grandfather, and iii) income said to have been earned by the respondent's son were not interfered with on the basis of a prima facie finding. The relevant portion of the order of the Special Court is as follows: