Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(iv) Hence after completion of a fair investigation, the investigating officer filed a charge sheet on 03.01.2013 for the offences under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1) (e) PC Act, 1988 as against A1; and for the offences under Sections 109 IPC read with 13(2) and 13(1) (e) PCA Act, 1988 as against A2 and the same was taken on file in Spl.C.No.1 of 2013. Pending the above case, A1 and A2 filed separate petitions invoking Section 239 Cr.P.C., in Crl.M.P.Nos.205 and 206 of 2016 in Special Case No.1 of 2013 before the Court of the Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore, praying to discharge them from the charges levelled against them. The https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm ) Crl.R.C.Nos.485 and 486 of 2017 learned Special Judge, after hearing both the accused and the prosecution, vide common order dated 31.01.2017, allowed the said petitions and discharged A1 and A2 from the charges levelled against them observing that the prosecution has failed to prove prima facie case to frame charges against them. Aggrieved by the findings of the Court below, which eventually resulted in discharge of the accused, the State has preferred these criminal revision petitions.

The main allegation was that A1, either in his own name or through A2, possessed money and property that were far beyond his known legal income, and he failed to give a proper explanation for how he acquired https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm ) Crl.R.C.Nos.485 and 486 of 2017 them, as required under the rules and laws applicable to public servants. Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed and taken on file in Spl.C.No.1 of 2013 by the learned Special Judge, Vellore. However, during the pendency of the trial, the accused/respondents filed separate petitions in Crl.M.P.Nos.205 and 206 of 2016 under Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge. After hearing the respective counsel, the learned Special Judge, by a common order dated 31.01.2017, allowed the discharge petitions and consequently discharged the respondents/A1 and A2 from the said proceedings.

''25. The High Court ought to have been cognizant of the fact that the trial court was dealing with an application for discharge under the provisions of Section 239 CrPC. The parameters which govern the exercise of this jurisdiction have found expression in several decisions of this Court. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on the assumption that the material which has been brought on the record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material, taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence. In State of T.N.v.N. Suresh Rajan[State of T.N. v. N.Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 529 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 721] , adverting to the earlier decisions on the subject, this Court held : (SCC pp. 721-22, para

16. Therefore at the time of considering an application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge, the Court has to see the materials, which have been brought on record by the prosecution and the probative value of the same cannot be gone into at the time of framing charges.

17. One of the main reasons the trial court discharged the accused was that they had filed separate income tax returns during the check period, which the judge took as proof of financial independence. However, this reasoning is flawed. Just filing tax returns does not prove that the assets were lawfully acquired especially when benami (proxy) transactions are suspected. It is pertinent to note that the Income Tax Department reviews returns for tax compliance, but this case was initiated by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, not the tax authorities. The allegations https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 07:27:56 pm ) Crl.R.C.Nos.485 and 486 of 2017 involve corruption and possession of assets beyond known source of income, which fall under the Vigilance Department’s jurisdiction. Even if A1 and A2 reported their finances to the tax department, that does not prevent the Vigilance Department from conducting its own investigation. The two departments have different roles: the tax department focuses on tax matters, while vigilance investigates corruption. Just because the tax department accepted a return does not mean the assets are automatically legal in a corruption case. If the Vigilance Department finds that assets are disproportionate to income, it can proceed with legal action regardless of what the tax department has done.