J PREM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners in these revision petitions are husband and wife and they are accused 1 and 2 in Special Case No. 5 of 1998 on the file of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-Cum-Additional District Judge, Cuddallore. They have filed one petition for discharge in Cri. M. P. No. 289 of 1998 and the same was dismissed by an order dated 5-3-99 and aggrieved against this, the first accused had filed Cri. R. C. 563/99 and thesecond accused had filed Cri. R.C.No. 349/99.

(2.) The case in brief for the disposal of both the revision petitions is as follows :The first accused has been charged for an offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as 'P.C. Act') and the second accused was charged for offences under Section 109, IPC read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(3) of the said Act. The first accused became a Member of Legislative Assembly on 17-6-91 and he became the Minister on 17-5-93. He purchased one Ambassador car bearing registration No. 1234 in 1988 by obtaining loan from TIIC and the vehicle was used as a taxi. He was able to get not less than Rs. 10,000/- per month from the taxi. Apart from that, he owns a cold drink stall at Cuddalore Bus Stand and he was getting a sum of Rs. 6000/- per month. Items 4 and 5 mentioned in the Annexure II in the charge sheet were purchased by the first accused totally for Rs. 47,000/- with the aid of the income yielded from the taxi and the cool drinks stall. Items 17 and 18 form part of the items 4 and 5. They have been separately shown to boost up the value. There is no farm house as mentioned in the Annexure and it is only a motor shed. Wherein agricultural implements are kept, Item 17 is a bore well and the motor shed was constructed in 1992-93 with the help of his father-in-law as well as the income mentioned above. Since the water in bore well in the item No. 17 was not adequate, another bore well mentioned in the item No. 18 was sunk for better irrigation. The expenses were met out of the agricultural income from items 4 and 5. The valuation given for items 17 and 18 is exaggerated. Item No. 23 S. B. Account was opened by him prior to 1987 and it is a running account. Account No. 5809 shown as item No. 25 was opened in the secretariat so as to enable the authorities concerned to credit his salary and other benefits. Even now, the pension amount is credited only in the account. Item No. 29 was purchased by him so as to get income-tax exemption as a Minister. Item No. 30 relating to Rs. 89,150/- belongs to his father-in-law. He is a Government Contractor and gave the money to his daughter for safe custody, which was to be distributed on the next day for the contract work. Another sum of Rs. 39,900/- was also kept by him for family and other expenses.

(3.) The family expenditure mentioned as items 1 and 2 in the Annexure 4 is baseless. The education expenses were met only by the second accused. He had nothing to do with the item No. 5. The properties standing in the name of the second accused were purchased only by her through the income given by her father and the petitioner has nothing to do with the same. The first accused is owning telephone connection for the past 15 years. The income through the salary mentioned as item No. 1 and in Annexure 3, is not true and the amount has been minimised wantonly. He has not committed any criminal misconduct and is not owning any property disproportionate to the known source of income and, therefore filed the petitioner for discharge.