9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Adjournment Request and Bail 2. Conviction under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 3. Financial Condition of the Appellant before Political Career 4. Financial Status and Income of Co-accused 5. Prosecution's Evidence and Acquittal of Co-accused 6. Benami Transactions and Burden of Proof 7. Legal Interpretation of "Proved" and Presumptions under Evidence Act Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Adjournment Request and Bail: The State of Tamil Nadu requested a four-week adjournment to file an appeal against the acquittal of Accused Nos. 2 to 5. The petitioner, being in jail, opposed the adjournment unless granted bail. The court decided to hear the Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) immediately and stated that the State's appeal would be heard separately. 2. Conviction under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act: The appellant was convicted under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for possessing pecuniary resources and properties disproportionate to his known sources of income during his tenure as Minister of Education. The High Court confirmed the conviction but acquitted Accused Nos. 2 to 5. 3. Financial Condition of the Appellant before Political Career: Before entering politics, the appellant had a weak financial condition, evidenced by his inability to repay small loans, which led to legal suits and decrees for recovery from his salary. This history indicated no substantial income or assets before his political career. 4. Financial Status and Income of Co-accused: - Accused No. 2 (wife) was a housewife with minimal agricultural income. - Accused No. 3 (daughter) was a student with no income. - Accused Nos. 4 and 5 were relatives with no proven independent income. - Accused No. 6 (Chartered Accountant) was acquitted at trial. 5. Prosecution's Evidence and Acquittal of Co-accused: The prosecution presented evidence showing significant asset acquisitions by Accused Nos. 2 and 3 during the check period, which were claimed to be gifts from Accused No. 4. The High Court acquitted Accused Nos. 4 and 5 due to insufficient evidence proving they held assets on behalf of the appellant. The court maintained the confiscation of assets in the names of the appellant, his wife, and daughter. 6. Benami Transactions and Burden of Proof: The appellant argued that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the properties in the names of Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were held on his behalf. The court cited the case of Krishnanand v. State of M.P., emphasizing the need for strict proof to establish benami transactions. However, the court found sufficient evidence to presume that the appellant used Accused No. 4 to transfer his money to Accused Nos. 2 and 3. 7. Legal Interpretation of "Proved" and Presumptions under Evidence Act: The court explained the definition of "proved" under Section 3 of the Evidence Act and the permissible presumptions under Section 114. It concluded that the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant's funds were transferred to Accused Nos. 2 and 3 through Accused No. 4, and the burden was on the appellant to satisfactorily account for the gifts, which he failed to do. Conclusion: The court upheld the conviction of the appellant, finding no infirmity in the High Court's order. The appeals were dismissed, and the court refrained from commenting on the acquittal of Accused Nos. 2 and 3 due to the State's pending appeal.
|
