K A SENGOTTAYAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is seeking for an anticipatory bail apprehending arrest by the respondents. Briefly stated his case is that he belongs to A. I. A. D. M. K. political party and has been a Member of Tamil Nadu legislative Assembly for five consecutive terms and served as Minister for transport and Forest Department for five years from 1991 to 1996 and he is also working as Propaganda Secretary of A. I. A. D. M. K. party. He has alleged that he has been falsely implicated due to political animosity and denied his liability for any act committed by the Corporations, such as Rajiv Gandhi Transport Corporation, dheeran Chinnamalai Transport Corporation, Anna Transport Corporation and Jeeva transport Corporation, in the appointment of officers, transfers and in the purchase of buses etc. He has also denied that there were any irregularities and corruption in the purchase of Dim and Bright Automatic equipment for Rajiv gandhi Transport Corporation and irregularities in the appointment of Junior assistants. He has complained of high handedness under instructions of the ruling party leaders to curtail the political activity and propaganda work for the forthcoming Panchayat Elections. He has also urged that he has no bad antecedents and not acquired any properties disproportionate to his income and he has filed his income-tax returns till date.

(2.) IT is stated by respondent No. 1 that a case in Crime no. 12/ac/96/hq has been registered against the petitioner for offence under sec. 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the credible information that during his tenure as Minister for Transport and forest in the Government of Tamil Nadu and earlier as Member of Tamil Nadu legislative Assembly (1989-June, 96), he had acquired properties and pecuniary resources in his name and in the names of his family members, relatives and other associates who are believed his benamies, which are far beyond his known sources of income. During the preliminary verification of the information, the respondents listed the properties acquired in the names of several persons and the value shown in the relevant deeds and as recorded in the documents, the total value of the properties including the stamp duty paid is about Rs. 2. 5 crores. In the course of investigation, on 6. 9. 1996 on the basis of search warrants, it is stated that possession of various assets including bank records and relevant documents have come to the notice of the respondents.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the earlier statement made by the Public Prosecutor on 20. 8. 1996 revealed that there were no materials against the petitioner and subsequent registration is with a mala fide intention. It is stated in the additional objection, when natarajan and others were arrested and on the basis of the materials seized in connection with a case registered against D. Paramasivam, the then Managing director, the Investigating Officer after verification of the correspondences and the materials seized, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was also involved, on 10. 9. 1996. THErefore, the earlier statement made will not ensure to the benefit of the petitioner to absolve him of the allegation made now.