2006 (8) TMI 692 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the discharge order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
2. Evaluation of the evidence and materials by the prosecution.
3. Inclusion of the assets of other individuals as part of A.1's assets.
4. The requirement for the Investigating Officer to provide an opportunity to explain the disproportionate assets.
5. The application of legal precedents and principles in determining the discharge.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the discharge order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate:
The Criminal Revision Cases were filed by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, against the order of discharge passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Villupuram. The respondents/accused were discharged from the charges under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 109 IPC. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the discharge petitions on various grounds, including the improper inclusion of assets and failure to provide an opportunity to explain the disproportionate assets.

2. Evaluation of the evidence and materials by the prosecution:
The prosecution recorded statements of 228 witnesses and relied on 318 documents. However, the prosecution failed to accept the income of A.2 (wife), A.3 (mother-in-law), and A.4 and A.5 (friends and trustees of Siga Educational Trust) when there were materials available in the form of Income Tax assessment orders. The prosecution included the incomes and earnings of A.2, A.3, and the Trust as part of A.1's income without proper justification.

3. Inclusion of the assets of other individuals as part of A.1's assets:
The assets of A.2 to A.5 were included as part of A.1's assets without evidence to show that A.2 to A.5 were benami of A.1. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found that the prosecution had failed to establish the link between the assets acquired by the accused and the individual income earned by A.1. The prosecution's methodology to establish disproportionate assets was erroneous, and the clubbing of properties of other accused was incorrect.

4. The requirement for the Investigating Officer to provide an opportunity to explain the disproportionate assets:
The Investigating Officer did not issue a notice to A.2 to A.5 to account for the quantum of assets in their hands. Legal precedents, such as Vedagiri, In re, and N.P. Lotikar v. C.B.I, emphasize the necessity for the Investigating Officer to give an opportunity to the person investigated to explain the disproportionate assets. The failure to provide such an opportunity was a fundamental error in the investigation process.

5. The application of legal precedents and principles in determining the discharge:
The court referred to several judgments, including Vedagiri, In re, Ananda Bezbaruah v. Union of India, and others, to highlight that mere possession of disproportionate assets does not constitute an offense unless there is a failure to satisfactorily account for such possession. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate meticulously considered the documents and found that the prosecution had failed to assess the total income of the individual accused in a fair manner. The court concluded that the expenditures were within the known sources of income of the individual accused.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the discharge order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram, stating that there were no concrete materials to frame charges against the accused. The expenditures were found to be within the known sources of income of the individual accused. The Criminal Revision Cases were dismissed, and the connected Crl.M.Ps were also dismissed. The court emphasized the importance of providing an opportunity to explain disproportionate assets and the necessity for the prosecution to fairly assess the total income of the accused.