STATE Vs. KALAIVANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents herein were arrayed as A-1 to A-3, in C.C. No.65/2001 on the file of the Addl. Special Judge, (CBI Cases), Chennai. Pending framing of charge, A-3 died. Therefore, charges were framed only against A-1 and A-2. A-1 was charged for the offence u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'the PC Act '), while A-2 was charged for the offence u/s 109 IPC r/w 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (e) of the PC Act . After trial, as the prosecution did not prove the charges, the accused were acquitted of the aforesaid charges. Aggrieved by the said acquittal, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/CBI.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts could be summarised as hereunder :- A-1 is a public servant; A-2 is the wife of A-1 and at the relevant point of time, was working as Lecturer and A-3 is the mother of A-1. It is the case of the prosecution that A-1 while functioning as a public servant in various capacities, during the period 1.4.84 to 29.3.96, had acquired assets, disproportionate to his known sources of income, in his name and in the name of his family members, viz., A-2 and A-3 to the tune of Rs.59,87,001/- and since he could not satisfactorily explain the acquisition of the assets, he was charged for the offence u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (e) of the PC Act and A-2 and A-3, were charged as abettors to the said acquisition with the aid of Section 190 IPC. However, since A-3 died pending framing of charges, the case as against A-3 stood abated.

(3.) A search of the premises of A-1 was conducted by the officials on 22.3.96/23.3.96 and during the said search, incriminating documents showing investments in fixed deposits, bank accounts, foreign currencies, documents relating to acquisition of movable and immovable properties and other documents were seized. Detailed inventory of the articles so seized were tabulated. The lockers at the various banks held in the name of A-1 and A-2 were also searched and an amount of Rs.8.70 lakhs and gold ornaments, valued at Rs.10,23,000/- were also seized. Since the respondents herein were not able to properly account for the acquisition of the movable as well as immovable properties and also the liquid cash, prosecution under the relevant provisions of the PC Act was initiated against A-1 after obtaining sanction from the competent authority and prosecution was also launched against A-2 and A-3 for abetting A-1 to amass the disproportionate asset. Criminal machinery was set in motion which culminated in the filing of the charge sheet against the accused.