J.AMALA JESSI JACQUILIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel on either side.

(2.) This revision case is directed against the order dated 01.07.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District dismissing Crl.MP No.1008 of 2016 filed by the petitioners herein. Crime No.7 of 2012 was registered on the file of the respondent against the petitioners herein for possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income. The first petitioner is now working as Assistant Executive Engineer, Rural Development Department in Nagercoil. Her husband Rajeswaran was a Lecturer in a Government aided college. He was suspended in the year 1995 and terminated in the year 2002. The check period is 01.12.1999 to 31.03.2009. The case of the prosecution is that the assets that stood to the credit of the accused officer as on 01.12.1999 is Rs.7,88,987/-. The assets that stood to the credit of the petitioners at the end of the check period was valued at Rs.56,15,017.17/-. The income earned by the petitioners during the check period was quantified at Rs.43,88,367/-. Their expenditure during this period was quantified at Rs.21,03,309.40/-. The assets acquired during this period were valued at Rs.48,26,030/- Thus, the disproportionate assets acquired during the period was valued at Rs.25,40,972.57. It works out to 57.90%. The prosecution took the explanation from the petitioners and went into the same and finally filed final report before the jurisdictional court. Cognizance of the offences was taken and summons were issued to the petitioners herein.

(3.) Controverting the stand taken by the prosecution and contending that not even a prima facie case is made out against them, the discharge application was taken out by filing Crl.MP No.1008 of 2016 under Section 239 of Cr.PC. The prosecution filed a detailed counter calling for dismissal of the discharge application. The learned Trial Judge after hearing both sides came to the conclusion that the contentions urged by the accused can be gone into only in a full-fledged trial and that on a careful consideration of the averments made in the charge sheet it found that the charges cannot be termed as groundless. In that view of the matter, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the discharge application. Challenging the same, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed.