R MARKANDAN (DIED); PUSHPAVALLI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Inspector of Police, SPE/CBI/ACB, Chennai in his police report concerned in case No.RC 17(A)/99 has stated that the accused Sri.R.Markandan was a public servant employed as Senior Operator at Indian Oil Corporation, Vilangudi, Madurai and at the end of check period from 1/3/1992 to 25/6/1999 he was found in possession of assets valued at Rs.21,30,371.50 whereas the value of his assets at the beginning of check period was Rs.12,051.30 and hence he acquired assets to the tune of Rs.21,18,320.20 during the check period and that he had spent a sum of Rs.2,39,826.80 during the check period and hence the total assets acquired and the expenses incurred by the accused during the check period comes to Rs.23,58,147, whereas his total income from all the known sources during the check period comes to Rs.13,75,684.40 and hence he was found in possession of assets and pecuniary resources disproportionate to his known sources of income by Rs.9,82,462.60 which comes to 71.4% of his income which the accused official was unable to satisfactorily account for and hence the accused official had committed an offence described u/s 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and punishable u/s 13(2) of the said Act.

(2.) After analysing the evidence on record, the trial Court viz., the Special Court for CBI Cases, on 10.10.2002 found the appellant guilty under Section13(2) r/w 13(1)(3) of P.C. Act 1988 and handed down the sentence to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for three months. Aggrieved against the order of the trial Court, the appellant/accused preferred the present appeal. Pending the hearing of the appeal, he died. Hence, his wife by name Pushpavalli filed an application in M.P.No.1 of 2009 to continue the appeal and the same was allowed on 7.9.2001 by this Court. Presently she is prosecuting the appeal. She filed an application in M.P.No.1 of 2010 to receive additional evidence in this appeal.

(3.) The learned trial judge has elaborately dealt with the known sources of income and expenditure during the relevant period and brought them under statement A,B,C and D and arrived at Rs.20,29,655.50 as value of the assets and pecuniary resources, and income received by him during the check period as Rs.16,02,695.00 and found the extent of disproportionate assets possessed by the accused at the end of check period at Rs.4,26,960.50. The trial Court has dealt with as regards the Statements under which various categories of sources of income and expenditure incurred by the appellant during the check period. Statement 'C' is the known sources of income of the appellant during relevant period and statement of 'D' is with regard to expenditure incurred during the check period. For easy understanding of the matter and also for the disposal of the appeal, the extraction of Statements A to D are inevitable. They are as follows: