A P PILLAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in Crl. R.C. No. 1287 of 2012 is the first accused and the petitioner in Crl. R.C. No. 1288 of 2012 is the second accused in C.C. No. 19 of 2012 on the file of the learned XIV Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai. The first accused was working as Manager in Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, Anna Salai, Chennai. The second accused is the wife of the first accused. A final report has been filed for an alleged offence under Section 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the first accused and under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w. 109 I.P.C. against the second accused. The petitioners have filed a petition before the trial Court under Section 213 Cr.P.C., seeking to discharge them and the said petition was dismissed. Challenging the said order, the petitioners have preferred the above two Criminal Revision Cases before this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that before filing the final report against the accused, the Investigating Officer did not call for any explanation from the accused and therefore, the mandatory pre-requisite condition has not been fulfilled by the prosecution. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that an opportunity should have been provided to the accused by the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer, with mala fide intention, filed final report against the accused.

(2.) Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases submitted that it has been stated in the final report at paragraph No. 10 that during the course of investigation, the first accused and his wife viz., the second accused have been examined and they have been given opportunities to explain and give satisfactory account for the disproportionate assets, but, the first accused has not offered any satisfactory explanation worthy of acceptance. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submitted that according to the counter filed by the respondent, the Investigating Officer has called for his explanation in person from the accused by showing the statements on 19.12.2011 and he had no satisfactory explanation for the disproportionate assets. The learned Special Public Prosecutor also submitted that though it is stated in the counter that an explanation was called for from the accused only in person, only on perusal of case diary, it could be ascertained what exactly transpired between the accused and the Investigating Officer. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that asking for an explanation in person without giving notice in writing, is not an illegal procedure.

(3.) This Court considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the records.