D.Janardhanan vs State Rep. By Its Deputy Superintendent ... on 3 July, 2018

[Cites 11, Cited by 1]

Madras High Court

D.Janardhanan vs State Rep. By Its Deputy Superintendent ... on 3 July, 2018

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 MAD 625

Bench: M.V.Muralidaran

        

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :    03.07.2018
CORAM :
THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN
CRL.A.Nos.347 and 497 of 2005
D.Janardhanan			 Appellant/1st Accused					 	in Crl.A.No.347/2005
J.Prema				 Appellant/2nd Accused					 	in Crl.A.No.497/2005
-Vs-
State							    rep. by its Deputy Superintendent of Police, 			Vigilance and Anti Corruption,				Cuddalore.		            Respondent/Complainant	(Cr.No.2/AC/97)				 in both the Appeals
Prayer in Crl.A.No.347 of 2005: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 15.04.2005 made in Spl.C.C.No.5 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore, convicting the appellant under Section 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment to undergo R.I. for another period of 3 months and begs to submit that the same is wholly illegal, erroneous and liable to be set aside.
Prayer in Crl.A.No.497 of 2005: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 15.04.2005 made in Spl.C.C.No.5 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore, in so far as it relates to the confiscation of the properties of the appellant contained in items 4 to 31 in Statement-II as it affects the rights of the appellant and begs to submit that the same is wholly illegal, erroneous and liable to be set aside.


	(In both the Appeals)					For Appellants 	: Mr.B.Kumar, Senior Counsel			  	  for Mr.R.Murali	
	For Respondent 	: Mr.R.Prathap Kumar					  Additional Public Prosecutor
COMMON ORDER

The instant appeals have been preferred by the appellants who are husband and wife. They were tried as 1st and 2nd accused respectively in the Special Case No.5 of 1998 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore. For the sake of convenience, both the appellants hereafter referred at their capacity as arrayed before the learned trial Court. At the conclusion of trial of the aforesaid case, the learned trial Court found guilty of the 1st accused who is appellant in Crl.A.No.347 of 2005 on the file of this Court.

2.Though the 2nd accused has been acquitted by the learned trial Court, she also has preferred the Crl.A.No.497 of 2005 as against the order of confiscation of properties. Further, the appellant/A1 was found guilty by the learned trial Court under Section 13(1)(R) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Thereby he was convicted under Section 13(1)(e), read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. As he was found guilty, he was sentenced to undergo a Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 2 years with a further direction to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment another period of three months. As against the judgment of the learned trial Court Appellant 1st accused has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C.

3.As far as the 2nd accused is concerned, she was acquitted from all the charges as she had not been found guilty. At the same time the 2nd accused has preferred the appeal under Section 454 of Cr.P.C., as against the judgment of confiscation of the properties in item 4 to 31 in the statement. Admittedly the judgment of acquittal of the 2nd accused has not been challenged by the prosecution. Since, both the appeals are arising out of a common judgment dated 15.04.2005 both the appeals are clubbed together and disposed of by this Common Judgment.

4.In order to prove the case prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 50, marked exhibits P-1 to P-155 and on behalf of the accused DWs-1 to 13 were examined and marked Exhibits D-1 to D-93 and on either side no material object was produced.

5.The prosecution case was triggered based on the preliminary enquiry in pursuance of reliable information received by Pw-50 namely one Mr.R.D.Dhakshanamoorty, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-corruption wing, Cuddalore. PW50 initiated the prosecution by registered the FIR in Crime No.2 of 1997 which is marked as Exhibit-P147. The Further case of the prosecution is that in pursuance of the case registered as against the 1st accused for the offence under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, investigation was commenced. In the course of the investigation searches were conducted at the premises of the 1st accused and their relatives and it was the case that in the course of the searchers incriminatory materials were seized.

6.According to the prosecution, the Investigation Officer restricted his investigation with a specific check period from 17.06.1991 to 13.05.1996.

7.The allegation of the prosecution is that the 1st accused/appellant was living a mediocre life prior to the check period but during the check period he had acquired movable and immovable assets in his name and in the name of his wife, who is second accused and appellant in Criminal Appeal No.497 of 2005, disproportionate to the known sources of income of the 1st accused. Further, the 2nd accused being the wife of the 1st accused lent all her intentional and active support to the 1st accused in the acquisition of movable and immovable properties. The further case of the prosecution is that A1 was elected as Member of legislative Assembly from Villupuram Constituency in the year 1991 general election on 17.06.1991. Thereafter, he assumed the office of Minister for Milk and Dairy Development and Animal Husbandry department from 07.05.1993. Subsequently, his portfolio was changed by taken away the Animal Husbandry department on 16.11.1994. But he continued as Minister for Milk and Dairy Development Department till on 13.05.1996. As for as the 2nd accused/appellant is concerned, according to the prosecution, she is a woman and so she has no independent source of income. The 1st accused/ appellant has three brothers and three sisters, and the father of the 1st accused had served as a Bill Collector and they lived in a rented house at Puthupalayam Cuddalore.

8.Earlier, A1 was running laundry at Subburayarchetty Street, and a newspaper cum cool drinks stall at Cuddalore Bus stand. Though he was a member of the political namely AIADMK from 1972, he became the District Secretary of the very same party later. When A1/Appellant sworn as MLA, he had owned a lamby scooter worth Rs.3,000/- and Ambassador car with a bank balance of Rs.256/- in his Savings Bank Account No.5495 at SACC, Cuddalore. At the same time, the balance available in the Savings Bank Account of the 2nd Accused/Appellant was at same bank at sum of Rs.25/- only. Both the Appellants/Accused owned 33 sovereign of the gold jewelry and as on 17.06.1991 their total assets were worth only a sum of Rs.1,78,281/-.

9.It is the specific allegation of the prosecution that after becoming a MLA and thereafter sworn a Minister in the State Legislative Assembly, A1 had acquired and possessed several movable and immovable assets, Term Deposits, Indhira Vikhas Patras, NSC and cash. Further, all these assets had been acquired by the 1st accused/appellant in his name and in the name of his wife. The value of the amassment of wealth by the 1st accused/appellant during the period between 07.06.1995 and 13.05.1995 at a sum of Rs.47,45,027/-. At the same time the total known income of the Appellant/1st accused is only at Rs.5,29,249/- from the known sources. But the expenditure for that period as about to Rs.13,97,651/-. Thus, he incurred an excess expenditure to the tune of Rs.8,68,402/-. Therefore, according to the prosecution that the aforesaid check period, A-1 has possessed assets disproportionate to his known source of income to the tune of Rs.56,13,249/-, and thereby he committed an offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

10.The case of the prosecution as against A-2 is that she has initially extended her assistance and co-operation in the process of acquisition of the disproportionate assets by the 1st accused and thereby she abetted the 1st accused/appellant and thus the 2nd accused/appellant committed an offence under Section 109 I.P.C. r/w 13(2), 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

11.Moreover, though prior to the indictment, the Investigation Officer PW-50 directed the 1st accused/appellant to offer his explanation in respect of the aforesaid findings, but the same was not heeded by the 1st accused, instead he informed that he would furnish his explanation before Court of the law. Therefore, both the appellants/accused, according to the prosecution, committed an offence under Section 13(2), 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption ACT and Section 409 of I.P.C. r/w 13(2)(e) and 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act respectively. Accordingly charge sheet was filed along with the statement I to VII as annexure with the charge sheet.

12.The evidence available in the instant case to support the charges was dealt with by the learned trial Court. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would submit that by examining 50 witnesses and also marking 154 Documents as exhibits, all the charges against appellants have been proved beyond all reasonable doubts. The evidence of PW-1 is that he is a Selection Grade Assistant in the office of the District Collector, Cuddalore and he sent the election expenditure account of the 1st Appellant/Accused. Exhibit P-2 to P-6 are the registered sale deeds and receipts for the collection of deficit stamp duty and they had been dealt with by PW-2. Further Exhibit P-8 is the registered sale deed registered by PW-3, Sub-Registrar of Nellikuppam. Exhibit P-2 is the photo copy of the identity card in the name of A1. Further Exhibit P-10 is the photocopy of the sale deed No.1737/1991 and the property purchased in the name of A-1 are in survey No.12/9 of Mavadipalayam village Cuddalore district. Further survey Nos.49/4, 89/3, 92/1 of Mavadipalayam village were sold in favour of A-2 in addition to that the property found in Survey No.50/4 of Alagiyanatham village was also purchased by A2. Moreover, Exhibit P-11 is the sale deed in respect of Document No.371/1995, a vacant house site at Thandapani Nagar.

13.Further, PW6 Mr.Sekaran deposed that when he served as Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax in the Cuddalore district. DW-3 Kannan Naidu, father of the 2nd accused/appellant filed his tax returns and according to P-13 the net income of DW-3 for the year 1989 to 1990 was shown as Rs.6,110/-. Further, said Kannan Naidu shown his business as Contractor. Moreover, as per the evidence of PW-7, a vacant house site an extent of 2378 square feet was purchased in the name of 2nd accused/appellant in Survey No.1028/3, Block No.30 at ward No.5. He also registered the other document Nos.1593/91, 1737/91, 1738/91, 371/95, 1440/95, 1441/1995.

14.Moreover, the other properties as per Exhibits P-31, P-32, P-33 and P-35 were also purchased in the name of A-2. PW-11 is the licensed Document Writer and PW-12 is Junior Electrical Engineer attached with TANGEDCO and PW-13 is one of the witnesses in Exhibit P-36, a sale deed executed in favour of A2 by one Gothandapani Chettiyar. The other prosecution witness namely PW-14, PW-15, PW-16, PW-17 are the Village Administrative Officer who had furnished the relevant copies of the Pattas in favour of the appellant/accused. PW-18 is the Manager attached with a Limited Finance Company in Chennai and they sanctioned a vehicle loan in the name of A-2. PW19 is Manger of Indian Overseas Bank saying about the periodical deposits by the 2nd accused/appellant. PW20 is the Manager of South Arcot district Co-operative Bank at Cuddalore, who speaks about the saving account of A-1 and A-2 vide Savings Bank Account No.5495 of A1 and also speaks about the account of the A2 Vide Account No.12032. PW-21 is the Assistant of Regional Transport Office, Pondicherry, who speaks about Exhibit P- 53. Further, PW-22 is the Branch Manager of United India Assurance Company who speaks about the policy details of Lamby Scooter bearing registered No.PW/F/5922 and Ambassador Car bearing registration No.TCF 1234. PW-24 is the property valuer. PW-25 is the local Transport Officer speaks about registration of the vehicle in the name of both accused. The life insurance policy taken by the 1st accused/appellant with Life Insurance Corporation, Cuddalore branch was spoken by PW-26. PW-27 is the Supervisor of Villupuram Housing Board Division and speaks about Exhibit P-66. PW-29 is the officer attached with Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation, Cuddalore branch and Exhibit P-82 loan detail which was availed by A1. PW-30 is the Junior Assistant speaks about the sanction for construction of a residential building. PW-31 is the Junior Assistant attached with Cuddalore Panchayat speaks about levy of tax assessment of the building in the name of A-2.

15.The sale of Indhira Vikhas Patras as per Exhibit P-83 was deposed by PW-32. The payments towards electricity as per Exhibit P-84 are deposed by PW-33. PW-34 is the Revenue Divisional Officer who issued the certificate of election to the 1st accused/appellant as MLA as per Exhibit P-85. The details of the salaries realized by A-1 as MLA and Minister was spoken by P-W35 a Joint Secretary to the Government (Public) Department. The allotment of a house HIG No.9, in favour of A-2 and the collection of installments for the allotment are spoken by PW-36. PW-37 speaks about in the family details of 1st accused/appellant as per Exhibit P-86 to P-89. The share investments by A2 is deposed by PW-38 and PW39 is the Inspector attached with the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption wing, Cuddalore speaks about the searches at the residence of the Kannan Naidu on 05.09.1997 as per the search warrant Exhibit P-92, he further deposed the seizure of documents during the search. PW40 is the Tahsildar, accompanied PW-39 for the search. PW-41 is the Special Tahsildar. Land Acquisition, she also conducted search at the residence in the name of A2 at No.9, H.I.G., TNHB and also speaks about the seizure of cash and documents. PW-42 is the Assistant Executive Engineer (Construction and Maintenance) Public Works Department, Cuddalore, who speaks about the value of the properties in the name of A-1, A-2. PW-43 is the Joint Secretary and Additional Secretary Legislative Assembly speaks about the salary earned by A-1. PW45 speaks about Exhibits P130, P78, P79, and P55. PW46 is the Superintendent of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, wing, West Range speaks about the instructions given by him to the Deputy Superintendent of Police that is PW-50. PW47 is the officer attached with the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, wing and carried out the searches and deposed about Exhibit P-143 and also speaks about P-130. The seizure of documents as per Exhibits P-9, P-36, P-54, P-55, P-77, P-78, P-131 to P-137 would show the list of documents seized during the searches. PW-48 speaks of Exhibit P-50 and PW-50 is the Investigation Officer and according to him the charges leveled against both the accused are all based on materials collected during his investigation. The oral documentary evidence are laid foundation for his charge sheet as against both the accused.

16.By summarizing the case of the prosecution, the learned Senior Advocate appeared for the appellant in Crl.A.No.347 of 2005 contended that the initial burden lies on the prosecution to prove and justify the charges against the appellants/accused was not considered by the trial Court though the prosecution has not proved the prima-facie case. Apart from that the failure on the part of the prosecution to file the original sale deeds was not considered by the learned Trial Court though it is violative of Sections 65 and 66 of the Evidence Act. The annexure that is statement I to VII are not properly considered and the defence raised by the appellant/accused was not properly considered by the learned Trial Court. Apart from that the probabilities of the generation of income by the 1st appellant/1st accused is also failed to consider by the learned Trial Court.

17.At this juncture it also brought to the notice of this Court that the acquittal of the 2nd accused from all the charges was not challenged by the prosecution. At the same time, the learned Trial Court ordered confiscation is bad in law, when the 2nd accused/appellant was acquitted from all the charges. Hence, the learned senior counsel prayed this Court to allow both the appeals. The learned Counsel for appellants/accused has relied on the following judgments to support his arguments:

(i) AIR 1977 SUPREME COURT 796, CDJ 2006 MHC 2586

(ii) AIR 1981 SUPREME COURT 1186(1), AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT 604(1)

(iii) AIR 1955 SUPREME COURT 196 (S) A.I.R 1955 S.C. (Vol. 42, C.N.34)

(iv) (2006) 1 SUPREME COURT CASES 420, (2006) 7 SUPREME COURT CASES 172, (1992) 4 SUPREME COURT CASES 45

(v) CDJ 2011 MHC 5805, 2014-2-L.W.(Crl.) 188, MLJ (Crl) 716

18.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that all the charges leveled against both the appellants are well founded and based on documentary and oral evidence. All the prosecution exhibits are very clearly pointing out that the accused are guilty and as a Minister of the State Legislative Assembly, the Appellant/1st Accused would not have amazed disproportionate assets. Further, he also contended that there are no mitigating circumstances in the prosecution case to show leniency as the offence committed by the accused/appellants are not simple misdemeanor, but it is a heinous offence not only touching upon the root of the orderly society, but shaking the same. Moreover, the offence committed by appellant/1st accused is absolutely a misfeasance. Therefore, he prays for the dismissal of the both appeals. He further added that as the appellant/1st accused was found guilty, the order of confiscation as against the 2nd accused is totally justifiable and no interference is required to intervene in the well considered judgment of the learned Trial Court.

19.For the best appraisal the annexure of Statements I to VII are extracted hereunder comprehensive:

STATEMENT I Assets at the commencement of the check period i.e. as on 17.06.1991 S.No. Assets Value Documents witnesses relied upon 1 Jewels 33 Sovereigns Nil PWs-45, 47, 50 Ex.P130 2 Lamby Scooter PYP 5922 3,000.00 Pws-21 & 22 Exs.P53 & P54 3 Ambassador Car TCF 1234 1,50,000.00 Pws-25 & 29 Exs.P61, P77, P78 & P82 4 Cash on hand (Notional value) 25,000.00 PW-50 P-51 5 Balance Amount in S.B. A/c. No.12032 of Mrs.J.Prema wife of Mr.D.Janarthanan at SACC Bank, Cuddalore 25.00 PW-20 P-52 6 Balance in S.B. A/c. No.5495 in the name of Mr.Janarthanan at SACC Bank 256.00 PW-20 P-51 Total 1,78,281.00 STATEMENT II Statement of assets that were in possession of A1 and A2 and their family members at the end of the check period i.e. as on 13.05.1996 S.No. Assets Value Documents witnesses relied upon 1 Jewels 33 Sovereigns Nil PWs-45, 47 & 50 Exs.P112, 112 2 Lamby Scooter PYP 5922 3,000.00 PWs-21, 22 Exs.P53 & P54 3 Ambassador 1,50,000.00 Pws-25 & 29 Exs.P61, P77, P78 & P82 4 Immovable Properties:

1.5 Acre of land at Mavadipalayam Village in R.S.No.12/9 was purchased by Mr.D.Janardhanan in his name on 16.08.1991 as per the document 1593/1991 of Sub-Registrar Office, Cuddalore-2. The value including cost, stamp paper, registration charge, document writer fee, etc. 13,925.00 PWs-2, 16 & 17 Exs.P6, P39 series to P44 series 5 6.92 Acre of land at Mavadipalayam Village in R.S.No.13 was purchased Mr.D.Janardhanan in his name on 30.08.1991 as per the document 1737/1991 of Sub-Registrar Office, Cuddalore. The value including cost, stamp paper, registration charge, document writer fee, etc. 55,018.00 Pws-16 & 17 Exs.P2, P39 series to P44 series 6 4.66 Acre of land at Mavadipalayam Village in R.S.No.8/2 was purchased byMr.D.Janardhanan in the name of his wife Mrs. J.Prema on 30.08.1991 as per the document 1738/91 of Sub-Registrar Office, Cuddalore. The value including cost, stamp paper, registration charge, document writer fee, etc. 37,144.00 PWs-2, 16 & 17 Exs.P4, P39 series to P45 series 7 4.65 Acre of land at Alagiyanatham Village in R.S.Nos.49/4, 84/3, 92/1 and 92/2 were purchased by Mr.D.Janardhanan in the name of his wife Mrs. J.Prema on 05.04.1994 as per the document 414/1994 of Sub-Registrar Office, Nellikupam. The value including cost (as per agreement Rs.2,65,000/-), stamp paper, registration charge, document writer fee, etc. 2,86,037.00 PWs-3, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15 Exs.P8, P36, P35, P37 series and P38 series 8 1.04 Acre of land at Alagiyanatham Village in R.S.No.50/4 was purchased by Mr.D.Janardhanan in the name of his wife Mrs. J.Prema on 07.12.1994 as per the document 1397/1994 of Sub-Registrar Office, Nellikupam. The value including cost, stamp paper, registration charge, document writer fee, etc. 39,763.00 Pws.4, 14 and 15 Exs.P10 & P38 series 9 A House site measuring about 2272 sq.ft in T.S.No.1033 at Thiruppapuliyur Town was purchased by Mr.D.Janardhanan in the name of his wife Mrs. J.Prema on 20.02.1995 as per the document 371/1995 of Sub-Registrar Office, Cuddalore-2.The value including cost, stamp paper, registration charge, document writer fee, etc. 19,724.00 PW5 Ex.P11 10 A House site measuring about 2378 sq.ft in T.S.No.1028/3 at Thiruppapuliyur Valliammal Nagar, Ward No.5, Block No.30 was purchased by Mr.D.Janardhanan in the name of his wife Mrs. J.Prema on 26.06.1995 as per the document 1440/1995 of Sub-Registrar Office, Cuddalore-2. The value including cost, stamp paper, registration charge, document writer fee, etc. 18,086.00 PW7 Ex.29 11 A House site measuring about 2304 sq.ft in T.S.No.1028/3 at Thiruppapuliyur Valliammai Nagar, Ward No.5, Block No;30 was purchased by Mr.D.Janardhanan in the name of his wife Mrs. J.Prema on 26.06.1995 as per the document 1441/1995 of Sub-Registrar Office, Cuddalore-2.The value including cost, stamp paper, registration charge, document writer fee, etc. 17,896.00 PW7 Ex.P30 12 A House site measuring about 5934 sq.ft in T.S.No.2380 at Vilvarayanatham, Ward No.7, Block No:45 was purchased by Mr.D.Janardhanan in the name of his wife Mrs. J.Prema on 24.05.1996 as per the document 1441/1995 of Sub-Registrar Office, Cuddalore-2.The value including cost, stamp paper, registration charge, document writer fee, etc. is Rs.2,58,276/-.

Note: Ex.P31 reveals that Rs.99,000/- was paid during the check period and the balance amount was paid on the date of registration i.e. On 24.05.1996 viz. After 11 days from the date of end of check period.

99,000.00 PW8 Ex.P31 13 A tiled house with vacant site at 16-B Ramadoss Naidu Street, Pudupalayam, Cuddalore was purchased by Mr.D.Janardhanan in the name of his wife Mrs.J.Prema on 26.09.1996 as per document No.939/1996 of Sub-Registrar Office, Cuddalore -1.

Note: Ex.933 reveals that Rs.2,00,000/- was paid on 07.03.1996 viz. during the check period and the balance amount was paid on 26.06.1996 viz. on the date of registration i.e. after 43 days from the date of end of the check period 2,00,000.00 PW8 Ex.P33 14 H.I.G. Flat No.9, at Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Vilvarayanantham, Cuddalore 1 allotted as per letter No.VPRI/6286/93, dated 26.08.93 of E.E. Ashok Nagar, Chennai 83 in the name of Mrs.J.Prema W/o. Mr.D. Janardhanan. The value paid towards the above building including application cost.

3,41,335.00 PWs.27, 33 and 36 Exs.P66 to P75 15 Additional construction was put up on the above building in Sl.No.14 in ground floor and first floor. Its value was evaluated.

6,78,484.00 Pws.24, 30 and 42 Exs. P58, 59, 60, 79, 80, 81 and 116 16 A farmhouse constructed, borewell erected and 10 H.P. submersible motor put up in the lands of Mrs.J.Prema W/o. D.Janardhanan at Alagiyanatham village. Its value was evaluated.

1,28,421.00 Pws-24 & 42 Exs.P60, 119, 122 17 A farmhouse constructed, borewell erected and 30 H.P. submersible motor put up in the lands of Mr.D. Janardhanan at Mavadipalayam village. Its value was evaluated.

2,86,418.00 PWs.24 & 42 Exs.P60, 118 and 121 18 A farmhouse with ground and first floor constructed, borewell erected and 20 H.P. submersible motor put up in the lands of Mr.D.Janardhanan at Mavadipalayam village. Its value was evaluated.

3,21,053.00 Pws.24 & 42 Exs.P60, 117, 120 19 Movable Properties:

A HMV Road Roller No. TN 31-E-3456 purchased on 8-6-95 in the name of Sri Venkateswara Petro Products, 9, HIG, Vilvaranatham, Cuddalore in which Mrs.J.Prema is a partner. 5,00,000.00 Pws.25, 38 & 49 Exs.P62, 90, 91 and 146 20 Amount contributed towards the share of partnership in the Sri Venkataswara Petro Products Company.

50,000.00 PW38 Exs.P90 & 91 21 A Hero Honda Generator was purchased in the name of Mr.J.Purushothaman son of Mr.D.Janardhanan on 7.4.95 27,750.00 Pws.28 & 50 Ex.P76 22 A TATA sumo Car TN 32-B-1234 purchased on 22.02.1996 in the name of Mrs.J.Prema W/o. Mr.D.Janardhanan (A2 paid Rs.1,46,971/- and raised a loan of Rs.2 lakhs from Cove investment and Finance Company Ltd., Chennai). 3,46,971.00 PWs-18, 25 & 50 Exs.P45, 63, 106, 107, 108 & 109 23 Balance amount in S.B.Account No.5495 in the name of A1 at South Arcot Central Co-op.bank, Cuddalore as on 13.05.1996. 1,04,383.00 PW20 Ex.P51 24 Balance amount in S.B.Account No.12032 in the name of Mrs.J.Prema W/o. Mr.D.Janardhanan, at South Arcot Central Co.op., bank, Cuddalore as on 13.05.1996. 1,82,293.00 PW20 Ex.P51 25 Balance amount in S.B.Account No.5809 in the name of Mr.D.Janardhanan, at Indian Overseas Bank, Secretariat Branch, Chennai as on 13.05.1996 3,16,366.00 PW19 Ex.P48 & 49 26 Balance amount in S.B.Account No.7853 in the name of Mrs.J.Prema, W/o. Mr.D.Janardhanan, at Indian Overseas Bank, Secretariat Branch, Chennai as on 13.05.1996 52,692.00 PW19 Exs.P4 & 46 27 Amount outstanding in time deposit account No.459365, dated 19.03.1993 in the name of Mr.D.Janardhanan at post office, Pondicherry 125.00 PW45 Ex.P.135 28 Amount spent towards purchase of Indira Vikas Patra valued Rs.21,000/-

10,500.00 PW32 Ex.P83 29 Amount spent towards purchase of National Savings Certificate on 09.02.1995 15,000.00 PW40 Ex.P110 30 Cash on hand seized and notice during house search (89,150 + 39,800) 1,28,950.00 Pws-41 & 50 M.O.1 series Ex.P112 31 Ready cash on hand for making balance payments for purchase of (i) the house site in (Sl.No.12 above) T.S.No.2380 at Vilvarayanatham as per document No.814/96 S.R.O. Cuddalore -1 (ii) a tiled house at (Sl.No.13 above) 16-B, Ramdoss Naidu Street, Pudupalayam, Cuddalore as per document No.939/96 of S.R.O. Cuddalore-1 and (iii) amount paid for the purchase of site on Vilvarayanatham as per document No.830/96 of S.R.O. Cuddalore-1.

4,92,974.00 Rs.1,59,276 + Rs.94,028+ Rs.2,39,670 + Rs.4,92,974/-

PW8 Exs.P31, 33 & 32 Total 49,23,308.00 STATEMENT III Income of A1 during the check period from 17.06.1991 to 13.06.1996 S.No Expenses Value Documents witnesses relied upon 1 Income through salary and other allowances received by Mr.D.Janardhanan 2,15,736.00 PWs.35, 43, 46 & 50 Exs.P.123, 140, 141 & 142 2 Agricultural income from lands at Alagiyanatham Village 42.000.00 PWs.14 & 15 Exs.P37 & 38 series 3 Agricultural income from lands at Mavadipalayam Village 43,180.00 PWs.16 & 17 Exs.P39, 42, 43 & 44 series 4 Interest accrued in S.B.A/c.No.5809 of Mr.D.Janardhanan at Indian Overseas Bank, Secretariat, Branch, Chennai 14,126.00 PW19 Ex.P48 5 Interest accrued in S.B.A/c. 5495 of Mr.D.Janardhanan at South Arcot Central Co-operative Bank, Cuddalore-1 4,127.00 PW20 Ex.P51 6 Interest accrued in Time Deposit A/c.No.459365 of Mr.D.Janardhanan at Post Office, Pondicherry 25.00 PW45 Ex.P135 7 Interest accrued in RDP No.229/95 of Mr.D.Janardhanan at Indian Overseas Bank, Secretariat, Branch, Chennai 2866.00 PW19 Ex.P.135 8 Interest accrued in RDP No.223/95 in the name of Mrs.J.Prema W/o. Mr.D.Janardhanan at Indian Overseas Bank, Secretariat, Branch, Chennai 2,866.00 PW19 Ex.P47 9 Interest accrued in S.B.A/c No.12032 of Mrs.J.Prema W/o. Mr.D.Janardhanan at South Arcot Central Co.Operative Bank, Cuddalore -1 4,323.00 PW20 Ex.P52 10 A sum of Rs.2 lakhs received as loan to buy TATA SUMO Car by Mrs.J.Prema wife of Mr.D.Janardhanan during February,1996 2,00,000.00 PW18 Ex.P45 Total 5,29,249.00 STATEMENT IV Expenditure incurred by Mr.D.Janardhanan during the check period i.e. from 17.06.1991 to 13.05.1996 S. No. Expenses Value Documents witnesses relied upon 1 Family consumption expenditure of Mr.D.Janardhanan 45,971.00 PW48 Ex.P145 2 Family consumption expenditure of the family members of Mr.D.Janardhanan 1,37,906.00 PW48 Ex.P145 3 Expenditure towards education of Purushotaman S/o. Mr.D.Janardhanan at Chettinad Vihyashram, Chennai 25,197.00 PW50 Ex.P148 series 4 Expenditure towards education of Gopalakrishnan S/o. Mr.D.Janardhanan at Chettinad Vidhyashram, Chennai 21,884.00 PW50 Ex.P148 series 5 Expenditure in taking demand draft No.728303, dated 07.10.1993 by Mr.S.Sugumar, P.A, to Minister in the name of N.Uma brothers daughter of Mr.D.Janardhanan 50,125.00 PW19 Ex.P50 6 Expenditure towards payment of premium for LIC policy No.730048913 in the name of Mr.D.Janardhanan 23,919.00 PW26 Exs.P64 and 65 7 Expenditure towards payment of insurance premium on 15.02.1996 to TATA SUMO Car of Mrs.J.Prema W/o. Mr.D.Janardhanan 9,781 PW40 Ex.P108 8 Expenditure towards payment of road tax paid on 17.4.96 to the above car 847.00 PW40 Ex.P107 9 Expenditure towards cable T.V. connection at the residence of J.Purushotaman son of Mr.D.Janardhanan located at Ministers Quarters at Chennai on 15.07.1995 the official residence.

3,000.00 PW40 Ex.P111 10 Deposits towards agriculture electricity service connection in the name of Mr.D.Janardhanan in S.C.No.32 41,135.00 PW12

Expenditure in payment of current charge to the above service 10,771.00 PW12

Deposits towards agriculture electricity service connection in the name of Mr.D.Janardhanan in S.C.No.41 10,000.00 PW12

Expenditure in payment of current charge to the above service 5,896.00 PW12

Expenditure in payment of fees to plan approval for the enlargement of the house at 9, HIG, Cuddalore in the name of Mrs.J.Prema W/o. Mr.D.Janardhanan on 20.03.1995 720.00 PW50

Expenditure in payment of insurance premium to the Lamby Scooter PYP 5922 of Mr.D.Janardhanan between 30.03.1991 to 11.04.1996 641.00 PW.22 Ex.P54 16 Expenditure in payment of insurance premium to the A,bassador Car TCF 1234 of Mr.D.Janardhanan between 12.04.1992 to 11.04.1996 10,094.00 PW22 Ex.P55 17 Expenditure in payment of telephone charges for telephone No.30870 in the name of Mr.D.Janardhanan at Cuddalore 2,18,619.00 PW50

A sum of Rs.4,57,500/- withdrawn on various date from 27.09.1991 to 28.06.1995 from the SB Account No.5809 of Mr.D.Janardhanan at Indian Overseas Bank, Secretariat Branch, Chennai and it is taken as unexplained expenditure 4,57,500.00

Ex.P48 19 Expenditure towards repayment of loan obtained of TATA SUMO Car by Mrs.J.Prema wife of Mr.D.Janardhanan. Note: For purchasing the TATA SUMO Car, A2 raised a loan of Rs.2 lakhs from cove investment and Finance Company Ltd., Chennai and for remitting the said loan amount A2 entered in to an agreement (Ex.P45) with the said company and remitted the loan amount by making monthly payment of Rs.21,100/-. The value noted is the loan amount paid by A2 for two months.

42,200.00 PW18 Ex.P45 20 Expenditure towards repayment of loan obtained from T.I.I.C for the purchase of Ambassador car 93,934.00 PW29 Ex.P82 21 A sum of Rs.8,300/- withdrawn on 11.02.1993 from the S.B.Account No.5495 of Mr.D.Janardhanan at South Arcot Central Co-operative Bank, Cuddalore and it is taken as unexplained expenditure 8,300.00 PW.20 Ex.P.128 22 A sum of Rs.1,74,790/- withdrawn on various dates from 28.12.1991 to 10.02.1993 from the S.B.Account No.12032 of Mrs.J.Prema W/o. Mr.D.Janardhanan at South Arcot Central Co-operative bank, Cuddalore and it is taken as unexplained expenditure.

1,74,790.00 PW20 Ex.P126 series 23 Expenditure towards payment of current consumption charges at 9, HIG Cuddalore in the name of Mrs.J.Prema W/o. Mr.D.Janardhanan 4,421.00 (1441+2980) PW.33 Ex.P84 Total 13,97,651.00 STATEMENTV 1 Assets at the end of the check period i.e., as on 13.05.1996 49,23,308.00 2 Assets at the beginning of the check period i.e., as on 17.06.1991 1,78,281.00 3 Assets acquired during the check period Statement No.1 (-) Statement No.2 47,45,027.00 STATEMENT VI 1 Income during the check period 5,29,249.00 2 Expenditure during the check period 13,97,651.00 3 Excess expenditure over the income 8,68,402.00 STATEMENT VII 1 Assets acquired 47,45,027.00 2 Excess expenditure over the Income 8,68,402.00 3 Disproportionate Assets 56,13,429.00

20.I heard Mr.B.Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Murali, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.R.Prathap Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent in both the Appeals and the materials available on record are perused.

21.The specific case of the prosecution is that the appellant/1st accused filed disproportionate assets more than his known sources of income and the 2nd accused/appellant had aided to the offence committed by the appellant/1st accused. At the same time, the defence of the both the accused is that their source of income are not properly taken by the prosecution and in order to initiate prosecution the expenditures incurred by both the accused were inflated.

22.The father-in-law of the 1st appellant was examined as DW-3 and whose evidence was not properly analyzed according to the learned counsel for the appellants. He would further submit that while preparing the statements, the income source of the father of 2nd appellant/accused were not taken into account. So, the evidence of DW-3 is subjected for close scrutiny. It is his evidence that he has 24 Acres of agricultural land and he owned a tractor and the Patta stands in the name DW-3 was marked as Exhibit R-1. It is his specific evidence that he earned a sum of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- from one acre of agriculture land each year. Further, he also deposed that the lands purchased in the name of the accused were funded by him. He also stated that he carried on a petro-products firm in which the 2nd accused/appellant and he himself were partners. As a Grade-I Contractor in the Public Works Department, he earned sizeable money and thereby invested in the name of the both the appellants.

23.All the prosecution witnesses have deposed about their role played in the prosecution case. However, the evidence of investigation officer PW-50 has disclosed that he did not get any documents either from the Registrar Office or Banks. Accordingly to him, he has conducted secret investigation nearly about a month, but he has not given any reference or which factor constrained him to register the case. In the First Information Report no detail is properly given though it is the case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The initial burden lies on the prosecution which cannot be denied. At the same time there is no legally acceptable evidence to show that under what circumstance and on whose instructions or complaint the case was registered, but in this regard contradictory evidence is alone is available. So, the genesis of the complaint is doubtful.

24.The perusal of the relevant exhibits has not inspired confidence that proper and unbiased investigation was done by the Investigation Officer. The reason is that in respect of the financial status of the appellants and DW-3, no investigation was made and as to why this factor was not investigated has not been explained by the Investigation Officer even in the chief examination. On the other hand, it is the evidence of the Investigation Officer that he does not have any acquaintance with the 17 documents referred in the complaint. In this regard absolutely no explanation is offered by the prosecution.

25.As far as the registration of the First Information Report Ex.P-147, it is not able to ascertain that on whose instructions and directions the case came to be registered. However, the perusal of the judgment rendered by the learned trial Court has not answered whether the registration of F.I.R was either on the instructions of the Superintendent of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing or based on any secret enquiry conducted by the Investigation Officer.

26.The registration of the F.I.R. in criminal jurisprudence assumes importance as the same is set the criminal law into motion. When the evidence of PW-50 is subjected for the analysis, it would show that the FIR was registered based on the instructions given by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption on 08.05.1997. Further it would show that the informant was PW-50. At the same time, the said FIR does not have any reference as the same was registered based on the instruction given by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. So, according to Exh.P-147, the Investigation Officer, PW-50 on his own has registered the First Information Report by arraying himself as the Informant. Apart from that the entire investigation was conducted only by the PW-50 and he only filed the charge sheet as against the Appellants. At this juncture it is useful to refer the contents of F.I.R., it would show that on receipt of credible information the said F.I.R. was registered, but absolutely there is no reference that there was a secret enquiry prior to the registration of F.I.R.

27.The evidence in respect of Ex.P147 during the course of the examination of PW-50 would show that they are improved latter by PW-50. It is not desirable that the officer who, be the Informant, registered the F.I.R., conducted the whole investigation and filed final report. Though PW-50 is competent to investigate the case under Section 17(c) of the Prevention of corruption Act, the version available according to PW-50 that he registered the case after due consultation with the directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption is highly doubtful as there is no reference to that effect in the Ex.P-147. The whole exercise in bringing the case to the file of the trial Court was carried on only by PW-50, then there could be some personal interest in getting the case succeeded in the Court of Law.

28.It is reflected in the perusal of Ex.P-147 and the evidence of PW-50, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the Appellant that as the whole case is resting on the evidence of PW-50 his evidence is to be carefully analyzed. He has submitted that the sources of income and the intentional hiking of the expenditures of the appellant would amply prove that the investigation is not unbiased. So, at this juncture, the law laid down the Honble Supreme Court in AIR 1981 SC 1186 (1) is useful to refer, wherein it is settled that the Accused need not prove his innocence by all reasonable doubts preponderance of probability as to possessions set out by accused is sufficient. Here the sources of income generated by the father-in-law were not properly considered as per the evidence Pw-50. To strengthen his arguments in this point, the learned counsel for the appellant has heavily relied on the judgment of this Court reported in 2014 (2) Law weekly Criminal 188, wherein it is held that whether the possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income burden of proof evidential burden not a persuasive burden, nothing unusual in daughter in law borrowing from her father in law accused have shown saving to purchase properties, course of investigation suggestive of predetermination of guilt prosecution -failed to prove appellant were holding assert disproportionate to their known sources of income conviction set-aside.

29.In my considered opinion, the Investigation Officer has not properly calculated the expenditures spent by the appellants, contrary, on his own he has hiked the amount mentioned towards the purchase of properties.

30.Though PW-50 is only investigation officer he ought to have examined the vendors of the properties in respect of the actual amount transacted. Moreover, though it is deposed by the Investigating Officer that his direction to the appellant/1st accused to offer his explanation was not complied with, but in this regard, no documentary proof is marked as exhibit. The Annexure-II of the charge sheet especially in serial No.12, the calculation was not properly calculated and also several items the amount spent are hiked without any basis.

31.As for as the income sources of DW-3, the Investigation Officer has not completely investigated and he admitted that the income source of DW-3 was not investigated and same was not taken into account. Moreover, the other sources of income of the DW-3 were also not taken into account; this would show the oneness of the investigation officer. When the prosecution case is mainly resting on the evidence of PW-50, his investigation is to be expected to show all fairness in filing the final report. Several items of Annexure-II, of the charge sheet are not having sufficient calculation.

32.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 (1), wherein it is held that based on two conditions the investigation is to be commenced as for as offences fall under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The first one is that the Public Officer should have reasons to suspect the commission of cognizable offence and the 2nd one is that he has to subjectively satisfy himself as to the existence of sufficient ground for entering prosecution. Whereas the facts of the case on hand is that strong doubt has arisen as to whether PW-50 on his own has registered the F.I.R. or on the instructions of his higher officials attached with the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai.

33.At the same time, this Court is very conscious to deal the bitter issue that is the evil of corruption in public life, which can be otherwise painfully known as devil of corruption in public life. No doubt, it is the duty of the Court to weed out the corruption from the public life. But the same cannot be on moral aspects alone, as for as criminal jurisprudence is concerned that the allegation of the source of the funds for the assets standing in the names of the accused, such allegations has to be established by the prosecution in the course of the trial and the accused have on opportunity to dispense the prosecution allegation as the ratio laid down in the judgment reported in 2015 (2) TNLR 32 (Mad).

34.Further, the judgment relied on by the learned Counsel for the appellants reported in CDJ 2006 MNC 2586 in Criminal Nos. 610/1997, and 79/2000, 83/2000,103/2000, wherein this Court has held that as for as the allegations made against the public servant that he had assets disproportionate, to the known source of the income, the duty of the investigation officer is as follows:

The investigating officer should asses the value of the assets of the public servant immediately prior to the check period with relevance to the tax returns of the concerned person and also loans and other incomes available to the person and also about the liability of the person prior to the check period.

The actual income during the check period and the expenditure actually incurred by the public servant should be calculated without any inflation and on a reasonable basis.

The total income during the check period and assets prior to the check period must be taken together as the total assets of the public servant from which the actual expenditure and amounts saved either by cash or by properties must be deducted from the total amount and see whether there is much disproportion to the known sources of income of the public servant and the assets on his hand. While making the calculation regarding the value of the properties and expenditure a reasonable margin has to be given this way or that way to that way to find out the truth. Such kind of procedure to be adopted only by an unbiased Investigating officer. There should be no suppression of income or under estimation of the income of the accused or inflation of the expenditure or inflation of the assets of the accused.

The Investigating officer should not suppress any of the income, by way of the loan or gift while considering the income of the public servant. Similarly after finding out that there is any disproportionate wealth in the hands of the public servant beyond his known sources of income, the accused must be given an opportunity to explain the same. Failure to give an opportunity to the accused to explain the same is fatal to the prosecution.

35.On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would contend that in the case of possession of assets disproportionate to the known source of income on the public servant, and when the public servant is failed to account for his assets satisfactorily, then he is liable to be convicted for the charges framed against him, the prosecution need not disprove all possible source of his income. He further submits that the assets available at the commencement of the check period are grown several hundred times at the end of check period. Though this alone would suffice to hold that the charges against the accused are not proved by the prosecution, the prosecution has not stopped the investigation in that particular point alone. It has further travelled and tried to prove that except the income sources of DW-3, no other sources of the income are shown by the accused to substantiate his offence. Once the prosecution has successfully proved the initial burden of proof then it is for the appellant/accused to disprove the case.

36.Though the aforesaid submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) is relevant for consideration, no explanation is offered about the lacuna found in the investigation. Since, the Investigation Officer himself is the informant in the instant case, he has failed himself in considering the other vital aspects including the source of the income from the appellant/1st accused, and he is father-in-law DW-3.

37.Moreover, the learned Trial Judge has travelled beyond the charges framed against the appellant/1st accused. Though, no charge is framed out of the check period with regard to the disproportionate asset, the learned Trial Judge has fallen into error that he can give finding without charge. If at all, the learned Trial Judge wanted to take into account the disproportionate asset after the check period, he is very well entitled to frame charges based on materials furnished by the Investigation Officer along with the charge sheet. In the instant case, without framing additional charges or separate charges to the effect to deal the alleged disproportionate income beyond the check period is not in accordance with law. The reason behind is that if all the learned trial judge has found that the appellant/1st accused had sources of income disproportionate to his assets and along with the final report the Investigation Officer has also furnished materials to that effect he can very well frame additional or separate charge. Then the contention of the charge is to be explained to the accused to facilitate him to defend the charge. Without complying with these legal requirements the learned trial judge cannot be influenced himself to the materials furnished along with the final report. Here in the instant case the learned trial judge has got influenced with the materials furnished along with final report and he has gone apart from the charges framed against the appellant / 1st accused as the same is impermissible in law.

38.Moreover, in the considered opinion of this Court, the stand taken by the learned senior counsel appeared on behalf of the appellants that PW-50 the investigation officer is not competent to investigate the case is unacceptable for the reason that the investigating officer being the Deputy Superintendent of Police is fortified with Section 17(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. So, the arguments advanced on the side of the appellants / accused as to PW-50 is not the correct authority to investigate the case is discarded by holding that the PW-50 is the competent officer to investigate the case. At the same time as already discussed that PW-50 is the person who himself be the informant, registered the F.I.R. Ex-P147, conducted the total investigation and filed final report is not desirable in the considered opinion of this Court. The Court is constrained to come to the conclusion for the reason with regard to the alleged preliminary secret enquiry and the exchanges of communication as deposed by the PW-50 in his evidence are not at all found place in Ex-P147. As investigation officer it is for his duty to investigate the case without any bias. Though he is the Deputy Superintendent of Police and competent to investigate the case, he must segregate the investigation to some other competent officer especially when he himself is the informant and registered the case. As he is the sole investigating officer in the total apprisel of the evidence, he had not taken the sources of income derivated from DW-3.

39.As far as the appellant/2nd accused is concerned that she has been charged under Section 109 of I.P.C. r/w 13(ii) & 13(i)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Further, it was the case before the learned trial Court that she had extended her co-operation and assistance to A1 to earn the disproportionate assets. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial judge had acquitted her from all the charges, ironically confiscation was ordered by the learned trial judge. In the opinion of this Court, the trial Court has not appreciated the totality of the case, when the charges framed against A2 were not proved and the judgment of acquittal in respect of A2 was not challenged then it is unreasonable to sustain the findings of the learned trial judge in respect of the confiscation. In fine as for as the appeal filed by the appellant / 2nd accused is allowed and the Judgment of confiscation is hereby set aside.

40.At the same time as for as the appellant/1st accused is concerned, the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellant in attacking the evidence of investigation officer are all sustainable. As the investigation officer especially who be the informant ought to have narrated all the factual aspects in the F.I.R. Though it is not compulsory to bring all the factual aspects in the F.I.R as the same is not an encyclopedia, but the case on hand is in different footing. There is no cogency between the evidence of PW-50 and the Ex-P 147 the preliminary enquiry conducted by PW-50, in fact that is the basis for the case, and the official communications in that regard were not brought in the F.I.R. So it has created a serious doubt as to whether PW-50 has registered the case on his own or on the instructions of his superior or on the basis of his preliminary enquiry. The cases registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act shall not be fallen into the doubtfulness once it is found by the Court that there are possibilities of falsehood in registering the case, then it would collapse the entire case of the prosecution as the same in the opinion of this Court is a vital blow upon the case of the prosecution. Further as pointed out earlier the expenditures incurred by the 1st accused/ appellant are inflated and the income sources of DW-3 from his agriculture are not taken up as income are considered to be serious lacuna. Hence this Court is constrained to hold that the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel are having legally justifiable force to consider the grounds of appeal.

41.In the result:

(a) the Crl.A.No.347 of 2005 is allowed and the judgment and conviction order passed in Spl.C.C.No.5 of 1998 dated 15.04.2005, on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore, is set aside;

(b) the Appellant/Accused No.1 is acquitted from all charges and the learned Special Judge is directed to refund the fine amount paid by the petitioner and the surety bond executed by the Appellant/Accused No.1 is cancelled;

(c) the Crl.A.No.497 of 2005 is allowed and the judgment passed in Special C.C.No.5 of 1998 dated 15.04.2005, on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore in respect of confiscation of the properties of the appellant/A2 contained in items 4 to 31 in Statement-II, is set aside;

03.07.2018 vs Index:Yes Internet:Yes To The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore.

M.V.MURALIDARAN,J.

vs Pre-delivery judgment made in Crl.A.Nos.347 & 497 of 2005 03.07.2018

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court