9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 1325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d separately. 2. Accordingly leave is granted 3. Heard parties. 4. By these Appeals the Appellant is challenging his conviction under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 5. Brief facts leading to these Appeals are as follows: 6. The Appellant was elected as a member of Legislative assembly from Marungapuri constituency in June 1991. He became the Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly on 3rd July, 1991. He was Minister of Education to the Government of Tamil Nadu from 17th May, 1993 to 9th May, 1996. For the sake of convenience this period from 17th May, 1993 to 9th May, 1996 will hereinafter be referred to as the check period. 7. Before the Appellant came to the political arena he was employed as a Lecturer in the Government Arts College. It has been shown that in 1973 the Appellant had taken a crop loan from the Bank of India for a sum of ₹ 13,000/-. That amount had not been repaid by the Appellant. Ultimately a Suit came to be filed and the amount had to be collected in execution of decree in that Suit. In 1985 the Appellant had borrowed a sum of ₹ 5,000/- from R. Palanivelu (P.W.16) who was also working ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding in their names had to be excluded from the Order of confiscation. The High Court, however, maintained the order of confiscation in respect of the assets of the Appellant and his wife and daughter. As against this portion of the Order the wife and daughter of the Appellant have also filed SLP (Crl.) Nos. 1867 and 2343 of 2001. Those were also listed on Board along with these Appeals. We have delinked those SLPs. 12. As states above, the charge against the Appellant is that whilst he was holding the office as Minister of Education, Government of Tamil Nadu i.e., during the check period he abused his position as a public servant and acquired and possessed pecuniary resources and properties in his name and in the names of Accused Nos. 2 to 5 disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extent of ₹ 77,49,337.77. 13. Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read as follows: 13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.- (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct:- (a) XXXXX (b) XXXXX (c) XXXXX (d) XXXXX (e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the defence or the prosecution is not material for purposes of these Appeals. Even if the figures are, as claimed by the defence, they are still quite large. 18. The High Court then holds that the prosecution had not proved or shown whether Accused Nos. 4 and 5 had any independent source of income of their own. The High Court concludes that the prosecution by failing to conduct an investigation into the individual income of Accused Nos. 4 and 5 had failed to prove that the assets standing in the names of Accused Nos. 4 and 5 did not belong to them. The High Court held that it could not therefore, be held that accused Nos. 4 and 5 were holding assets only on behalf of Accused No. 1. On this basis the high Court acquits Accused Nos. 4 and 5. as we have been told that the State is likely to file an Appeal against acquittal of accused Nos. 4 and 5 we make no comments on this aspect. 19. Accused No. 2 was only a house-wife and Accused No. 3 was only a student before and during the check period. Accused No. 3 being a student had no source of income except some very small agricultural income. It is proved and admitted that the only source of income of Accused No. 2 is agricultura ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 within a period of not even 40 days i.e. 25.1.1995 to 3.3.1995. 23. The prosecution has examined P.W.6. Manager of Andhra Bank, Trichy. His evidence shows that locker Nos. 122 and 32 were kept by Accused Nos. 2 and 4 jointly. These lockers were opened in presence of P.W. 23, the then Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance on 2.9.1996 at about 2.30 p.m. Totally, there were 37 items of jewels and Ex. P 114. Search list was prepared and signed by P.W.23 and PW6. PW 34 the proprietor of Devi Jewellers, Trichy states that Accused No. 2 purchased jewels through cash bills Ex. P. 202 to 214. The various dates of purchases are 16.12.1993, 24.1.1994, 28.1.1994, 18.3.1994, 31.3.1994, 28.7.1994, 28.11.1994, 26.12.1994, 10.2.1995, 28.2.1995, 20.3.1995 and 31.3.1995. Even as per the worksheet submitted by the defence, the total value of the jewels purchased by Accused No. 2 form M/s. Devi Jewellers is ₹ 8,88,086/-. 24. Further, PW 50, the accountant of Coimbatore Jewellers has deposed that accused No. 2 purchased jewels worth ₹ 84,250/- on 15.3.1995. The carbon copy of bill was marked as Ex.P.265. On the same day, jewels wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m by Accused No. 4. Both the Trial Court and the High court have disbelieved the story of gift and concluded that these were in fact the properties held by these persons on behalf of Accused No. 1. On this basis Accused No. 1 had been convicted. 28. Mr. Rao has seriously assailed the Judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court. He submitted that it has been established in the High Court that Accused No. 1 himself did not have any pecuniary resources or properties disproportionate to his known sources of income. He submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to show that the properties standing in the names of Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were held by them on behalf of Accused No. 1. He submitted that it was for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt and by means of legal evidence that these were Benami properties of Accused No. 1. Mr Rao submitted that Accused No. 4 had been acquitted by the High Court on the ground that the prosecution has not investigated into his personal source of income. He submitted that, therefore, it could not be presumed that Accused No. 4 had no personal source of income. He submitted that Accused No. 4 was the nephew of the Appellant and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch it thinks likely to have happened regard being had to the common course of natural events human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. 32. Thus the fact is said to be proved when after considering the matters before it, the Court believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exits. In coming to its belief the Court may presume existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened having regard to the natural course of event, human conduct and public and private business, in relation to the facts of each case. 33. Now, let us see the facts of this case. The prosecution has established beyond a reasonable doubt, that prior to the check period Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 had no real source of income, except some meager incomes, i.e. Accused No. 1 only earned a small salary as a Lecturer and Accused Nos. 2 had small agricultural and other income. Accused No. 3 being a student had no real source of income. Prior to the check period the financial condition of the family was such that Accused No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
