D VEDAGIRI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition against the order of the learned Special Judge (Principal Judge), City Civil Court, Madras in Crl.M.P.No.2760 of 1981 in C.C.No.16 of 1981 dismissing the petition filed by the accused/petitioner herein seeking his discharge. The facts of the case are briefly as follows: The Petitioner was a Divisional Engineer working in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Dharmapuri Division. The Department of Vigilance and Anti Corruption received information that the petitioner was indulging in corrupt practices and was amassing wealth illegally. Thereupon, a preliminary investigation was started. In the course of which statement of assets, statement of income and statement of expenditure were obtained for the petitioner through his head department. The Investigating Officer verified those statements and found that none of them was fully correct. Upon his own enquiry, he came to the conclusion that the total income of the petitioner for the check -period, viz., 1.5.1968 to 30.6.1977, was Rs.1,52,109.74 the total expenditure Rs.82,057.65 and hence the likely savings Rs.70,452/ - On the other hand he assessed the total assets possessed by the petitioner at Rs.1,64,331.71. The difference between the total assets and the likely savings, viz., Rs.93,800/ -was found to be not accounted. Considering therefore that there was a vast difference between what the petitioner was likely to possess legally and what he possessed actually, he came to the conclusion that there was a prima facie case of an offence under Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947) hereinafter referred to as the Act, being committed and accordingly filed, what he called -a charge -sheet - against the petitioner before the concerned Judge. Immediately after the submission of the -Charge -sheet -, a petition was filed by the Petitioner herein praying for his discharge. His case was that as per Section 5(1)(e) of the Act, there would be an offence only when he cannot satisfactorily account for the possession of his assets, that therefore he should have been called upon to explain for the possession of pecuniary resource of properties found to be disproportionate and that till then no valid report incriminating the petitioner could be filed by the police before the Court. He contended that since the report was incomplete in respect of a substantial point, the court should not proceed to frame the charge and hence he prayed for being discharged.

(2.) THE petitioner -s contention was not accepted by the Special Judge, who ruled that the petitioner could explain the disproportion between the savings and the assets pointed out by the Investigating Officer in the course of the trial, and the petition was dismissed by the order dated 2.3.1982. This order is now challenged in the present revision petition.

(3.) THE contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that there is no statutory obligation for the Investigating Officer to examine the accused and that therefore for the absence of any question being put by the Investigating Officer, the investigation will not be considered as incomplete or otherwise challengeable.