ALEXANDER Vs. C B I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, a retired Director General of Police, approached this court under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging Annexure C order passed in Crl.MP.No.239 of 2001 in C.C.No.4 of 1995 on the file of the Special Judge (SPE/CBI) -1, Ernakulam and court charge (Annexure D) framed against him in C.C.No.4 of 1995. According to Annexure-D charge- sheet, he was found in possession of assets worth Rs. 62,81,737-38 during the period 30-4-1980 to 20-9-1991 which are disproportionate to his income. It is the contention that the above chargesheet is baseless, illegal and irregular. Final report of the Police (Annexure A) itself and documents produced along with the police report, will prove that the charges are "ground less' and nothing is going to be gained by asking the petitioner to face the trial of Annexure D charge except wasting the valuable time of the court and causing unbearable hardship and irreparable injury to the petitioner which are irreversible. Annexure D court charge is as follows: That you, while working as public servant during the check period from 30-4-1980 to 20-9-1991, were found in possession of assets worth Rs.62,81,737.38 which are disproportionate to your all known sources of income and for which you could not satisfactorily account and thereby you committed the offences punishable under S.5 (2) r/w.5( l)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and 13(2)r/w 13(l)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and within the cognizance of this court." Even though petitioner approached the Apex Court when there was an order for surrender of his passport while granting bail. Honourable Apex Court, though admitted the SLP with regard to that question, further observed that since final report and charge were filed accused can approach the Special Court for discharge or an appeal before the appropriate forum for questioning of the proceedings by Annexure E order. When proceedings were questioned, this court was of the view that that contention has to be argued before the Sessions Court while framing charge and considering the question of discharge. Apex Court also took the same view, but, observed that: "However, we make it clear that the petitioner would be at liberty to raise all his contentions before the appropriate court. Without prejudice to the same, the special leave petition is dismissed."

(2.) Even though a preliminary objection was raised by Advocate Mr. Sreekumar, counsel appearing for the CBI that since petition for discharge was dismissed, petitioner should have filed revision petition and not a petition under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no emphasis was given to that point. In view of the Apex Court decision in M/s. Pepsi Food Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors.' the Apex Court observed as follows:

(3.) The main ground of the petitioner is that undisputed documents annexed to the charge-sheet were not considered by the Sessions Court while dismissing his discharge application and framing the charges. It is his contention that he hails from a substantially rich family. His father was an assessee to Agricultural Income Tax. He has large extent of property prior to 1968 as can be seen from document Nos.5 to 9 in the charge-sheet. He was a first rank holder and Lecturer in Department of Politics in the University of Kerala when he was selected to IPS in 1961. He married from a rich family and his wife is a heiress and he inherited large extent of agricultural property mainly rubber plantations. His three children have also become major before the check in* period and they are also highly educated and earning members. They also had agricultural properties inherited from the in-laws of the petitioner much before the check in period, but, the income was calculated by the investigating agency including the independent income of his family members, that is, his wife and major children. It is the further case that apart from all other income, if the income mentioned in Exts.D468, D520, D522, D524, D550, D551, D552, D546, D543 and D17 are taken into account, it would show that the income of the wife and children through properties inherited by him from the petitioner's in-laws was to the tune of Rs.78,43,720-50 during the check in period. The above documents and income are as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_636_CRIMES2_2006Html1.htm</FRM> It is his case that these documents are annexed to the final report filed by the investigating officer and those documents are undisputable finalised assessment orders or awards or court judgments and official records. The alleged disproportionate income earned during the deck in period was only Rs. 62,81,737 38. Considering the above documents alone, even without going into any other documents, there is a prima facie case to show that disproportionate assets of the petitioner as claimed by the investigating officer is only imaginary. This income is without including his own income as salary and interest. Non-consideration of those documents while framing charges and rejection of the petitioner's claim for discharge by Annexure C order, constitute grave error and injustice. Petitioner has also stated that investigating officer has not listed all the source of income of the petitioner and his family, but, he has suppressed such source of income. Coming for the income of the family as revealed, according to the petitioner, these contentions even though raised, that was rejected by the Sessions Judgs by merely stating that the court is only to consider whether there is any prima facie case and it can be considered in the final disposal. The learned Sessions Judge held as follows: