LAWS(MAD)-2017-8-275

S NARAYANAN Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CBI

Decided On August 29, 2017
S NARAYANAN Appellant
V/S
Deputy Director Of Cbi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions have been filed by Mr.S.Narayanan (A.3) and Mr.A.DSethureswaran (A.2) respectively pending before the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases at Chennai. Seeking to call for the records related to C.C.No.9/2001 and quash the same, on the ground that the Income Tax Department conducted raid at the premises of one Mr.A.N.Dyaneswaran (A.1) in C.C.No.9/2001 on 19.01.1999 and seized several incriminating documents including fixed deposit documents worth about 33,87,000/- in the name of Mr.S.Narayanan (A.3) (writ petitioner in W.P.No.8294 of 2017) and Mr.A.D.Sethureswaran (A.2) (writ petitioner in W.P.No.8295 of 2017).

(2.) Based on the discovery of documents and seizure of properties from the residence and office premises of Mr.A.N.Dyaneswaran (A.1), block Assessment was made by the Income Tax Department for the period from 01.04.1985 to 20.01.1996. In furtherance of the action of the Income Tax Department, the Central Bureau of Investigation has registered a regular case against Mr.A.N.Dyaneswaran (A.1) in Crime No.43A/96 on 18.07.1996 for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The investigation concluded on filing final report by the Central Bureau of Investigation on 14.03.2001 wherein, Mr.A.N.Dyaneswaran was arrayed as A.1 and his son, Mr.A.D.Sethureswaran (writ petitioner in W.P.No.8295 of 2017) was arrayed as A.2 and one Mr.S.Narayanan (writ petitioner in W.P.No.8294 of 2017) was arrayed as A.3. Charges were framed against A.1 for offence under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and against A.2 & A.3 for offence under Sections 109 I.P.C., 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

(3.) The case of the prosecution is that since the explanations offered by the petitioners regarding the source of income for the alleged fixed deposit receipts in their names are not acceptable, they have been prosecuted for abetting A1 to a mass disproportionate assets and lend their name to invest the ill gotten money.