LAWS(MAD)-2012-4-129

K R BALASUBRAMANIAM Vs. STATE

Decided On April 17, 2012
K R Balasubramaniam Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE nutshell of the case are as follows:- The revision petitioner/accused No. 13 had filed a petition under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. to discharge him from the Criminal Proceedings in Crime No. 9/AC/96/HQ for the offences under Section 13(2) read with 13(l)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 109 of IPC, on the file of respondent, stating that he is an innocent person, and that without oral or documentary evidence, the said criminal case had been filed. The revision petitioner has further stated that he has not abetted with A1 as stated in the final report. As per final report, there is no prima facie case against the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner has acquired sufficient income through his agricultural operations and this had not been considered by the prosecution, who had wrongly calculated the income and expenditure of the revision petitioner.

(2.) THE revision petitioner further submitted that the Coffee Estate of an extent of 25.45 acres was not purchased by the A1 in the name of the revision petitioner. Further, the house property at Kilpauk, Chennai has also not been purchased by the A-1 in the name of A-13. The revision petitioner further submitted that the allegation of the prosecution that the A1 had purchased property at T.Nagar, and made investments in Thiruvettai Ayyanar Spinning Mills, Madurai, Kavitha Pharma and various banks in the name of the revision petitioner have not been authenticated. Hence, the discharge petition has been filed by the accused.

(3.) ON considering the averments and on hearing the arguments of the learned counsels for their respective parties, the learned judge had observed that the revision petitioner has purchased properties and other necessary resources to the tune of Rs. 47,02,787.00, and that he has not given any sources for these purchases made by him. Therefore, it was held by the judge that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner for framing charges. Hence, the discharge petition was dismissed.