J.LEELA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Originally, the appellant in this appeal was arrayed as first accused in Special Case No.13/2011 on the file of the Special Court for Vigilance and Anti Corruption Cases, Madurai District. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant died. The wife of the appellant/2nd accused in Special Case No.13/2011 filed an application in M.P.1/2014 in Crl.A.(md).No.76 of 2012 to grant leave to continue the appeal. This Court, by order dated 26.11.2014, permitted her and directed to continue the appeal.

(2.) The case of the appellant is that the respondent Police registered a case in Cr.No.4/AC/2002 against the appellant/accused No.1 and four others, based on the complaint, given by the defacto complainant/P.W.22 for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(a), 13(i)(e) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The respondent Police, after investigation, laid a charge-sheet against the appellant/A-1 for the offences punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(i)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and against the accused Nos.2 to 5, charges were abated. The Special Court, after the trial, found the appellant guilty and convicted him for the offences under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(i)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo a rigourous imprisonment of 3 years and also imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment and acquitted the other accused from the charges framed against them. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the first accused alone filed this appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant died. Hence, the charges were abated against the appellant. However, the wife of the appellant, who was arrayed as accused No.2 in Special Case No.13/2011, filed an application in Mp.No.1/2014 on the ground that the allegations mentioned by P.W.22 in the petition (Ex.P.24) was baseless and to that effect, no independent witnesses were examined to corroborate the version and report sent by P.W.26. P.W.31, the Investigating Officer has failed to peruse the earlier statements recorded by his predecessor and the further explanation of the appellant/Ex.P.67. P.W.26, Naresh Gupta has not sent the entire report to the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption and only he has sent the report of the enquiry. The earliest enquiry with regard to Ex.P.24 was not placed before the Court either by P.W.26 or by the Investigation Officer. The Investigation Officers namely P.Ws.30 and 31 suppressed the known sources of income and assets of the appellant and other accused. The Investigating Officer has simply examined some of the witnesses and calculated the income and explained without any guidelines. The evidence adduced by the prosecution has not satisfactorily proved the charges levelled against the appellant. The agricultural income and the rental income from the year 1965 to the beginning of the check period of the appellant was Rs.51,50,200/-. The documents placed by the appellant to disprove the case of the prosecution was not at all appreciated by the Special Court in this case and also the documents of the defence has not been considered and appreciated by the trial Judge and the trial Judge has simply accepted the case of the prosecution and found the other accused not guilty in this case and acquitted them and the appellant was wrongly convicted. Therefore, the appellant has filed this appeal before this Court, challenging the judgment of the trial court.

(3.) The case of the prosecution is that the appellant, who was a public servant and was directly recruited as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Tamil Nadu Police Service in the year 1969 and went upto the rank of Inspector General of Police, Salem Zone on 22.01.1997 and he was in-charge of the Commissioner of Police from 22.01.1997 upto 27.05.2000 and retired from service on superannuation on 30.06.2001. After service, he was recruited as Inspector General of Police, State Human Rights Commission from 30.06.2001. During the tenure of the appellant as Commissioner of Police, Salem City and Inspector General of Police, Salem Zone, from the year 1997 to 2001, he was reportedly indulged in corrupt practices and other illegal activities and acquired properties both movables and immovables disproportionate of his income and hence, the Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Unit, Dharmapuri registered a case in Cr.No.4/AC/2002 for the offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(a), 13(i)(e) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the appellant and investigated the matter. After the investigation, charge- sheet was filed stating that the appellant, during the check period i.e from 01.01.1998 to 30.06.2001 was said to be in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the tune of Rs.33,58,490/- in his name and in the name of his wife Smt.Leela/2nd accused, V.J.Kumaresan, his son/3rd accused, Smt.Rama, his daughter/4th accused and Thiru.Guptalingam, his son-in-law/5th accused. The first accused was charged under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and accused Nos.2 to 5 were charged under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w 109 I.P.C for having abetted the appellant. On 30.08.2005 itself, as per the order of the Madras High court, the case was transferred from the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Krishnagiri to Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Madurai and the learned Special Judge, Madurai, has taken the case on file in Special Case No.2/2005. The learned Special Judge, after completing the formalities, framed the charges against the appellant under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(i)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and against the accused 2 to 5 under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(i)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w Section 109 of I.P.C.