STATE Vs. K PONMUDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Criminal Revision Cases are filed by the superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Cuddalore, against the order of discharge passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/special judge, Villupuram, passed in Crl. M. P. Nos 374, 375, 383 and 376 of 2004 respectively, dated 21. 7. 2004 in Spl. Case. No:7 of 2003 discharging the respondents/accused 1 to 5 of the charges made under Sections 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 109 IPC.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows:- A. 1, K. Ponmudi is a public servant held office as a State minister between 13. 5. 1996 and 2001. A. 2 is his wife. A. 3 is his mother-in-law. A. 4 and A. 5 are his friends. A. 3 to A. 5 are trustees of one Siga Educational Trust. A final report was filed by Deputy superintendent of Police, V & AC, Cuddalore against the accused for offences under Sections 13 (2) r/w. 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act r/w. 109 IPC in Special Case No. 7 of 2003 on the file of the Chief Judicial magistrate, Special Judge, Villupuram. THE prosecution recorded statements of 228 witnesses and 318 documents are relied on and produced before the Court. THE cheque period was fixed as 13. 5. 1996 to 31. 3. 2002. THE allegation against two sons of A. 1 and A. 2 who were earlier implicated in the FIR hav e been dropped in the final report. However, final report was filed as against a. 1 to A. 5 treating the incomes of his wife, A. 2, mother-in-law, A. 3, and the trustees of Siga Educational Trust A. 3 to A. 5 as that of the income of A. 1. In the final report the incomes and earnings of A. 2, A. 3 and the Siga Educational trust were included as that of the income of A. 1. THE following is the calculation made by the prosecution in the final report:-

(3.) IN Vedagiri, IN re (1985 M. L. J (Criminal) 151), it is held as follows:- "under Section 5 (1) (e) of the Act, it is not merely the possession of the property disproportionate to the known sources of income that constitute an offence, but it is the failure to satisfactorily account for such possession that makes the possession objectionable and offending the law. IN other words, two phases are contemplated in the investigation, firstly the discovery of the existence of property disproportionate to the source of income openly known to the investigation machinery, and secondly the scrutiny of the explanation that the public servant might offer in disclosing other source of legal income or in any other manner. Therefore, for an offence under Section 5 (1 ) (e) of the Act the INvestigating Officer has necessarily to satisfy himself that the concerned public servant has not satisfactorily accounted for the possession of pecuniary resources or property, found by the INvestigating Officer disproportionate to his own source of income. It is thus obvious that the INvestigating Officer should give an opportunity to the person investigated against to explain the disproportion found by him.