State of Tamilnadu By Ins.of Police Vigilance and Anti Corruption Vs. N.Suresh Rajan & Ors.
|
Head Note
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 109 , Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 - Section 13 (1) , (2)
Properties acquired disproportionately - Discharge - Sustainability - Respondents accused was member of m Legislative Assembly and State Minister allegedly owned and possessed properties by disproportionate to the tune of Rs. 23,77,950.94 - Accused along with other co accused were charged for offence punishable u/s. 109 IPC and u/s. 13(2) r/w s. 13(1)(e) of the Act - Respondents filed application seeking for discharge - It was rejected by Special Judge - Aggrieved respondents filed revision before HC - HC by impugned judgment set aside order of Special Judge and discharged respondents - Hence instant appeals - The fact that accused other than 2 Ministers was assessed to income tax and paid income tax should not be relied upon to discharge accused persons particularly in view of allegation made by prosecution that there was no separate income to amass such huge properties - Property in name of income tax assessee itself should not be ground to hold that it actually belonged to such assessee - In case proposition was accepted, it would lead to disastrous consequences - It would give opportunity to corrupt public servants to amass property in name of known persons, pay income tax on their behalf and then be out from mischief of law - While passing impugned orders, Court had not sifted materials for purpose of finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against accused but whether that would warrant conviction - Further, defect in investigation itself should not be ground for discharge - Hence, impugned order of HC suffered from grave error and called for rectification - Appeals allowed.
Topic(s)-