IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on : 28.08.2023

Pronounced on: 13.09.2023

Coram:

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

Crl.A.Nos.444 & 446 of 2023 Crl.A.No.444 of 2023

State represented by: The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

[Crime No.4/AC/96/MC-I

of Chennai V & AC]                  … Appellant/Complainant

/versus/

1. R.Venkatakrishnan,

S/o.S.Ramadoss,

No.34, Brindavan Street Extension,

West Mambalam,

Chennai -600 033. 2.Tmt.V.Manjula, W/o. R.Venkatakrishnan No.34, Brindavan Street Extension, West Mambalam,	… Respondent/A1
Chennai -600 033.	… Respondent/A2

Prayer: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 378(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, pleased to set aside the common judgment passed in C.C.Nos.88 of 2011 [old C.C.No.10 of 2000] & 89 [Old C.C.No.11/2000], dated 11.01.2012 by the Learned Special Judge for cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai.

For Appellant           : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar,

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

For Respondents : Mr.B.Kumar, Senior Counsel,     for Mr.Arun Anbumani.

Crl.A.No.446 of 2023

State by Inspector of Police,

Vigilance and Anti-Corruption,

Chennai.                                                            … Appellant/Complainant

/versus/

1. R.Venkatakrishnan

S/o.S.Ramadoss,

No.34, Brindavan Street Extension,

West Mambalam,

Chennai -600 033. 2.Tmt.V.Manjula W/o. R.Venkatakrishnan No.34, Brindavan Street Extension, West Mambalam,	… Respondent/A1
Chennai -600 033.	… Respondent/A2

Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C., pleased to set aside the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 11.01.2012 in C.C.No.89 of 2011 on the file of the Special Judge for cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai.

For Appellants          : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar,

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

For Respondents : Mr.B.Kumar, Senior Counsel,     for Mr.Arun Anbumani.

C O M M O N  J U D G M E N T

The State is the Appellant herein. The respondents 1 and 2 are husband and wife. The first respondent was the Personal Assistant (Private) to the Minister of Social Welfare from 24/06/1991 to 23/03/1994 and 06/05/1994 to

30/04/1996. By the virtue of this post, he fall within the meaning of ‘Public

Servant’ as defined under the Prevention of Corruption Act.  His pay scale was

Rs.1640-60-2600-75-2900 when he joined as P.A to Hon’ble Minister of Social

Welfare, Before that he was working as a Clerk in an Advocate Office at

Chennai. After joining the Minister he married the second respondent on 21/10/1991. During the mid of 1994 he was terminated, but joined again after a intermission of 6 weeks.  On 13/02/1996, in connection with the matter related to M/s.Tamil Nadu Textile Corporation, the residence of the first respondent was searched by the Income Tax Department. During the search Indian and various other foreign countries currencies, gold jewels, high value household articles, deposits and other incriminating documents were seized under mahazar. The Income Tax Department initiated proceedings for undisclosed income and evasion of tax. While so, the Inspector of Police, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-corruption, Chennai, on reliable information registered case against the first respondent on 19/09/1996 in Crime No:RC 4/AC/96/MC I, for offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of P.C Act on being prima facie satisfied that, the first respondent, who hails from a humble background,  has acquired about 12 immovable properties, 3 Maruti car, 1 Premier 118 E, 1 Contessa car and a Tata Sumo. He had gone abroad several times and also travelled extensively within India by flight. Comparing to his known source of income, his wealth in hand, style of life and assets in hand indicates abuse of official position to amass wealth disproportionate to the known source of income in his name and in the name of his relatives.

2. As per the order of the Superintendent of Police, DV&AC, Central Range vide letter dated 04/10/1996, investigation of the case in exercise of power under Section 17 Proviso (2) of P.C Act initiated and further vide proceedings dated 04/10/1996 in exercise of power conferred under Section 18 of P.C Act, 1988, the Superintendent of Police authorised Mr.P.V.Thomas,

Inspector of Police, Special Unit-III, Chennai, to investigate the case.

3. The investigation subsequently culminated in filing of two final reports. One for the check period from 01/07/1991 to 23/03/1994 and another for the check period 06/05/1994 to 30/04/1996. The final reports were taken on file by the II Additional Sessions Court, Chennai in Special C.C.No.10 of 2000 and Special C.C.No.11 of 2000. Later, transferred to the Special Court for cases under P.C Act and re-numbered as C.No.88/2011 and C.C.No.89/2011.
4. C.No.88 of 2011 (old C.C.No.10 of 2000):- The charge framed reads as, R.Venkatakrishnan the first accused (Public Servant) and his wife V.Manjula the second accused during the first check period (01/07/1991 to 23/03/1994) acquired assets worth Rs.32,34,386/- while the worth of the asset of the first accused (Public Servant) at the beginning of the check period was only Rs.10,000/- and their likely savings during the check period after deducting expenditure from the disclosed income was only Rs.6,96,083/-. For properties worth about Rs.25,28,302.75/- found in possession of A-1 and A-2, they were not able to satisfactorily explain the source. Hence, liable to be tried for offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of PC Act, 1988.
5. C.No.89 of 2011 (old No C.C.No.11 of 2000):- The charge framed reads as, at the end of the II check period (06/05/1994 to 30/04/1996) they held assets worth Rs.88,42,743.45 while their assets at the beginning of the check period was Rs.32,33,191.50 and likely savings during that period was only Rs.7,59,553.65. Thus, for the assets worth Rs.48,49,998.30 they were not able to satisfactorily account for the source. Hence, liable to be tried for offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of PC Act, 1988.
6. On considering the evidence of witnesses and the documents, the trial court acquitted both the accused vide common judgement dated 11/01/2012 holding that the material placed by the prosecution were not sufficient to prove the guilt of A-1 and A-2 beyond all reasonable doubts.
7. Against the common judgement, the State has filed two Criminal Appeals before the High Court one against C.C.No.88/2011 and another for C.C.No.89/2011. Both the Criminal Appeals were filed with the delay of 1884

and 1885 days respectively. The Miscellaneous Petitions in Crl.M.P.No.7100/2017 and Crl.M.P.No.7101/2017 to condone the delay was dismissed by the High Court on 06/12/2017. Against the order of dismissal, the State being aggrieved, preferred SLP’s before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 14/02/2023, allowed the SLP’s with a direction to the High Court to restore the Appeals on file and to decide it on merits within 12 months from the date of receipt of the order. Accordingly, the present appeals are restored and taken on file for consideration on merits.

8. The judgement of acquittal is impugned in these appeals on the ground that, the first accused R.Venkatakrishnan hails from a poor economic background in a Village at Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District. After the demise of his father (who was working as a cook for a salary of Rs.63/- p.m and retired voluntarily in the year 1983) he migrated to Chennai and joined as a Clerk in an Advocate Office had a meager income. On 24/06/1991 when he joined the Minister of Social Welfare, Government of Tamil Nadu as Junior P.A (Political) neither the first accused nor his parents had immovable property in their names. He married the second accused on 21/10/1991 after the commencement of the first check period. Second Accused is an housewife who had no independent source of income.  A-1 continued to be as Junior P.A to the Hon’ble Minister (Social Welfare) for about 5 years except for a brief spell of 6 weeks between 24/03/1994 to 05/05/1994.  He had amassed wealth more than 285% of his known source and the fact came to light through source information after the Income Tax Department searched his house and recovered unaccounted currency (both Indian and Foreign), documents for investments in Bank, Shares in Finance Companies and Title deeds of immovable properties in the names of the first accused, a public servant, his wife and his mother (who was working as a servant maid (Ayya) in a village school). The total worth of the assets held by the accused persons at the end of the second check period was assessed by the prosecution as Rs.88,42,743.45.
9. A-1, who had only Rs.10,000/- as savings before appointed as

Junior P.A (Political) to the Minister for pay scale of Rs.1640-60-2600-75-2900

(Ex.P-1) was able to acquire wealth worth about Rs.88 lakhs, in a span of about 5 years. Whereas, the value of the asset held at the beginning of check period was Rs.32,33,191.50/-. From his income after meeting out the expenses, he could have at the most saved only Rs.7,59,553.65. Therefore, the excess assets worth Rs.48,49,998/- is disproportionate to the known source of income. The trial Court relying upon the income tax returns filed as block assessment after the search proceedings, contrary to law and judicial precedents had acquitted the accused persons.

10. S.Udaya Kumar, Learned Government for the appellant/State referring the properties item wise in the hands of the respondents, its value and the explanation given by respondents for its source and the reasoning of the trial Court for accepting the explanation, contended that the reasoning and findings of the trial Court are perverse and contrary to evidence, therefore, liable to be set aside and the accused/respondents has to be convicted.
11. It is contended that the trial Court conveniently overlooked the facts that unaccounted Indian Currencies and Foreign currencies recovered from the house search of the accused persons. As a public servant, the acquisition of any properties ought to be disclosed to the Government. A-1 omitted to disclose the assets acquired in his name and in the name of his spouse. He and his wife belatedly filed their Income Tax Returns after the search by Income Tax Department and launching of criminal investigation. The trial Court had given undue weightage on unreliable and doubtful evidence which were created after the commencement of trial for the acquittal of the accused.  The trial Court had wholly relied on the declaration of the accused A1 and A2 made in their respective Income Tax Returns filed several years later the accounting years and after the I.T Department proceeded with block assessment due to their failure to disclose the income. The declaration made before the Income Tax Department belatedly is an afterthought and reliance of those declaration in the criminal prosecution for disproportionate assets is deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
12. The wife and mother of the 1^st accused (Public Servant) had no source of income to acquire properties. However, two months after the marriage, a property was purchased in the name of the second accused individually and few month thereafter, another property purchased jointly by the second accused and mother of the first accused. The accumulation of properties continued unabated.  No documentary evidence produced by them to show transfer of fund to A-2 by any other persons.  However, the trial Court erroneously accepted the explanation of the accused without any supporting documents as if, they had other legal source to purchase these properties merely because the Income Tax Department has accepted the subsequent and belated disclosure of income and collected tax.
13. The Learned Government Advocate for the appellant/State pointed that the trial Court erred in accepting the false explanation of the accused persons that the additional construction for Rs.11 lakhs over the land and

building purchased in the name of the 2^nd accused and the mother of the 1^st accused for Rs.6 lakhs shown at item No.4 in Annexure-II was build by the brother of the first accused.  R.Srinivasan, who is the brother of the first accused was an employee of ONGC.  He himself was prosecuted for possessing disproportionate asset by C.B.I. He was acquitted on a technical ground that between the preliminary enquiry and registration of F.I.R, he was allowed to retire voluntarily. Therefore, on the date of registering F.I.R the said R.Srinvasan was not a public servant, hence offence under Section 13(1)(d) P.C

Act, not made out. Therefore, even though R.Srinivasan, in his belated Income Tax Returns filed in the year 1996 shown that, he had lend money to A-2, it cannot be taken on its face value.  In the absence of corroborating evidence this explanation ought to have rejected.

14. Regarding 3062 grams of gold recovered from the A-1 during the house search, the Learned Government Advocate pleaded that, though there is no account for the possession of entire gold jewels recovered, the trial Court accepted the farce explanation of the accused and deleted the value of 1845 grams of gold jewels, which in fact unaccounted gold jewels held as asset in excess of known source.
15. Certificate for 3500 shares in M/s.Talent Steel Industries Ltd worth Rs.3,50,000/- purchased in the name of A-2 during the first check period (between 06/12/1993 to 09/02/1994) was recovered by the I.T Department during the house search of the accused. A-2 had not satisfactorily explained the source for purchase of those shares. However, the trial Court decline to take into account the value of the shares for the reason that the purchase of these shares does not fall within the check period. This reasoning is apparently contrary to the facts and perverse. Further, when the accused does not deny the recovery of the shares certificates during the search proceedings or her right over the shares,  the trial Court declined to include the face value of the share on a flimsy reason that the shares certificate does not bear the seal of the Company though the Director has signed in the certificate.
16. Regarding the investments in M/s.Sri Ramdoss Finance Pvt Ltd, R.R.Associates, M/s.Venson Steel Industries and Sri Ramdoss Builders Pvt Ltd in the name of A-2 between the years 1992 to 1994 are admitted by A-2 in her

IT returns filed subsequently by the accused. The trial Court declined to take these admitted investments into account stating that the Investigating Officer had not collected documents to show A-2 was Directors in these Companies and no evidence was let in to show these companies are in existence. When the holding of the shares is admitted by the accused and declared in the income tax return, the trial Court strangely wanted the prosecution to prove the existence of the Company and passing of consideration.

17. The Learned Government Advocate for the appellant/State also submitted that, a commercial property measuring 503 Sq.ft at Dr.Ambedkar Road, Chennai, purchased by A-2 from her mother vide registered document dated 04/03/1992 for consideration. However, in the explanations given by the second accused, she claim that, the said property was gifted to her by her mother without receiving consideration. This explanation was accepted by the trial Court since the vendor (mother) had given an affidavit before the Income Tax Department in support of this contention. This reasoning is contrary to law of evidence. No oral evidence contrary to documentary evidence is admissible in law. Acceptance of the affidavit given by the vendor before the Income Tax Authority where the Law of evidence need not be followed cannot be a reason for the Court to accept it where the Law of evidence has to be followed. It is perverse to accept the oral evidence contrary to documentary evidence that to on a registered document which says in unambiguous term that the sale consideration for the transfer of this property is Rs.90,000/-, inclusion of stamp duty of Rs.17,883.50 and registration fees of Rs.1,490/-.  Hence, he contended that, the sale deed in favour of A-2 taken as gift deed by the trial Court to favour the accused was for obvious reasons.
18. The Learned Government Advocate referring certain portions of trial Court judgement which according to him are new found reasons by the Court which even the accused 1 & 2 did not pleaded or said in their Final Opportunity Notice. Hence, prayed for reversal of the judgement and convict the respondents 1 and 2.
19. Per contra, the Learned Senior Counsel Mr.B.Kumar representing for Mr.Arun Anbumani for the respondents submitted that, there is no error or perversity in the trial Court judgment. It is based on the explanation of the accused persons and documents supporting the explanation. The Income Tax proceedings initiated by the Department on block assessment alleging non disclosure of income had reached it’s logical end after the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 30/11/2007 (Ex.D-1).  There is no illegality or error in referring the Tax Returns and Assessment Orders even though they were subsequent to the registration of F.I.R.  The prudence of a Statutory Authority dealing with income of a person cannot be totally ignored and substituted with the presumption of the Investigation Officer, who is a Policeman not expertise in Accounting/valuation/Income and Expenditures. Therefore, the Income Tax Returns and Assessment Orders, explanation given by Mr.Srinivasan the brother of A-1 are material evidence which has been rightly taken note by the trial Court to arrive at correct decision.
20. Highlighting the admission in the cross examination by the Officer who investigated the case, the Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents submitted that, except relying upon the materials collected by the Income Tax Department, nothing in addition collected by the Investigating Officer during his investigation. Hence, relying the proceedings of Income Tax Department is very much relevant. Further, A-2 is not a Public Servant and she had her own independent income and assets at time of her marriage with A-1. However, her assets at the beginning of 1^st check period was not taken into account. The

Income Tax Department had accepted the independent income of A-2 and the source for purchase of the properties which stands in the name of A-2.

21. The case of the prosecution is that, A-2 had no assets of her own or income of her own either before marriage or after marriage been rightly disbelieved by the trial Court. Her income derived from taking tuition, the cash gifts she received during her marriage and loan received from R.Srinivasan taken as explanation sufficient to prove the source of her income by the trial Court. The illegality in the prosecution case boosting the expenditure during the first check period for the children never born, omission to take the agricultural income, over valuation of the studded jewels, omission to include the jewels received during the marriage, marriage anniversary and birthday are some of the income, the prosecution has not taken into account. After taking these omissions into consideration, the trial Court found that there is no disproportionate asset held by the respondents/accused and had acquitted both the accused. Just because, there is an alternate view is possible, the finding of the trial Court need not be reversed, 11 years after the judgement of acquittal.
22. Finally, the Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents/accused also submitted that, as per Proviso (1) and (2) of Section 17 of P.C Act, 1988, the Police Officer, who investigate the case must be not below the rank of Inspector of Police and shall have general or special order of authorisation by the State Government. Further, specifically for the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of P.C Act shall not be investigated without specific order of a Police Officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police.  In this case, the investigation done by P.W-27, who was Inspector of Police at the relevant point of time had no authorisation to investigate the case under section 13(1)(e) of the P.C Act.  P-55 dated 04/10/1996 is the order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Central Range, V&AC, Chennai and this order passed in exercise of power under Section 18 of P.C Act. The order was issued for investigating the case registered against Venkatakrishnan (A-1) for offences under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of P.C Act. However, the proviso which mandates that general or special order for an Officer in the rank of Inspector of Police is not complied in this case.  Therefore, the trial itself suffers inherent illegality since P.W-27, without authorisation had investigated the case. His improper investigation without authorisation being tested by the trial Court and found not proved.  Therefore, the investigation done by a person not authorised to investigate and ended in acquittal need no revisit.
23. Heard the Learned Government Advocate for the appellant/State and the Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. Records perused.
24. The bone of contention in these two appeals arising from the common judgement resulting in acquittal of the accused persons. Whether the reasoning of the trial Court on accepting the explanation offered by the accused persons regarding the source is based on prudence and evidence or improbable and perverse.

Particulars of assets of Tr.R.Venkatakrishnan (A-1) as on 01.07.1991 (  beginning of the 1^st    Check Period 01.07.1991 to 23.03.1994)

Annexure – I	Particulars of assets of Tr.R.Venkatakrishnan as on 01.07.1991 (Regarding of 1st Check period)	Rs.10,000/-
Annexure – II	Particulars of assets as on 23.03.1994 (end of 1st check period) in the name of R.Venkatakrishnan and his wife Tmt.V.Manjula	Rs.32,34,386.00
Annexure – III	Income of Tr.R.Venkatakrishnan and Tmt.V.Manjula during the 1st check period from 01.07.1991 to 23.03.1994	Rs.8,73,347.00
Annexure – IV	Expenditure                of                     Tr.R.Venkatakrishnan            and Tmt.V.Manjula during the 1st check period from 01.07.1991 to 23.03.1994	Rs.1,77,263.75
Annexure – V	Assets acquired by Tr.R.Venkatakrishnan between 01.07.1991 and 23.03.1994	Rs.32,24,806.00
Annexure – VI	Likely savings of Tr.R.Venkatakrishnan at the end of the check period i.e., as on 23.03.1994	Rs.6,96,083.25

25. The launching of prosecution against these respondents was the consequence effect of when the treasure concealed by the respondents in their house came to light during the search of respondents resident by the Income Tax Department. Till the search and recovery of the undisclosed wealth, the income for acquiring these properties was not disclosed to the Income Tax Authority. The 1^st accused being a Public Servant also had not disclosed the acquisition of wealth to the Government under which he was serving. All the defence and explanation came much after launching of the prosecution.
26. Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 reads as below:-

Section 13(1)(e): A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct.

  (a)

  (b)

   . 

   .    .

(e) “ if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income.”

                             27.     In Vasant Rao Guhe -vs- State of Madhya Pradesh

reported in JT 2017 (7) SC 586, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while explaining the scope and ambit of Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C Act, had observed : –

“20. As ordained by the above statutory text, a public servant charged of criminal misconduct thereunder has to be proved by the prosecution to be in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income, at any time during the period of his office. Such possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income may be of his or anyone on his behalf as the case may be. Further, he would be held to be guilty of such offence of criminal misconduct, if he cannot satisfactorily account such disproportionate pecuniary resources or property. The explanation to Section 13(1)(e) elucidates the words “known sources of income” to mean income received from any lawful source and that such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of law, rules, orders for the time being applicable to a public servant.

21. From the design and purport of clause (e) of subclause (1) to Section 13, it is apparent that the primary burden to bring home the charge of criminal misconduct thereunder would be indubitably on the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the public servant either himself or through anyone else had at any time during the period of his office been in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income and it is only on the discharge of such burden by the prosecution, if he fails to satisfactorily account for the same, he would be in law held guilty of such offence. In other words, in case the prosecution fails to prove that the public servant either by himself or through anyone else had at any time during the period of his office been in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income, he would not be required in law to offer any explanation to satisfactorily account therefor. A public servant facing such charge, cannot be comprehended to furnish any explanation in absence of the proof of the allegation of being in possession by himself or through someone else, pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. As has been held by this Court amongst others in State of Maharashtra Vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede [2009 (15) SCC 200], even in a case when the burden is on the accused, the prosecution must first prove the foundational facts.”
22. These Appeals are against the order of acquittal. The scope of interference with the order of acquittal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C also taken into account. In Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has ruled that, in an appeal against an order of acquittal, “the High Court has full power to reappreciate, review and reconsider the evidence at large, the material on which the order of acquittal is founded and to arrive at its own conclusions on such evidence.

Both questions of fact and of law are open to determination by the High Court in an appeal against an order of acquittal. However, has to bear in mind that, there is a double presumption in favour of the accused once there is an order of acquittal. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person should be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved to be guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured an acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is certainly not weakened but reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court.”

29. It has been time and again reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, a careful and close examination of the reasons that has impelled the Lower Court to acquit the accused is required and examined by the Court of Appeal in deciding the assailment against acquittal. Once the Competent Court comes to the conclusion that, the view taken by the Lower Court was clearly

unreasonable, then that by itself would be a compelling reason for interference.

30. Regarding the probative value of Income Tax Returns filed

subsequent to the launching of prosecution, it is worth to know the views of the the Hon’ble Supreme Court spelt in State of Karnataka -vs- Selvi J.Jayalitha and others reported in 2017(7) SCC 263.  The precedent laid in the case cited supra is taken in mind by this Court while testing the trial Court judgement. For considering the Appeals in hand, it is suffice to refer paragraph Nos.175 &

176 of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in re: State of Karnataka -vs- Selvi.J.Jayalalithaa reported in 2017 (7) SCC 263, which clarifies the effect of orders passed in the Income Tax proceedings while considering the prosecution under Section 13(1)(e) of P.C Act.

“175. The decision is to convey that though the I.T.

returns and the orders passed in the I.T. Proceedings in the instant case recorded the income of the Accused concerned as disclosed in their returns, in view of the charge levelled against them, such returns and the orders in the I.T. Proceedings would not by themselves establish that such income had been from lawful source as contemplated in the explanation to Section 13(1(e) and that independent evidence would be required to account for the same.

176. Though considerable exchanges had been made in course of the arguments, centering around Section 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, we are of the comprehension that those need not be expatiated in details. Suffice it to state that even assuming that the income tax returns, the proceedings in connection therewith and the decisions rendered therein are relevant and admissible in evidence as well, nothing as such, turns thereon definitively as those do not furnish any guarantee or authentication of the lawfulness of the source(s) of income, the pith of the charge levelled against the Respondents. It is the plea of the defence that the income tax returns and orders, while proved by the Accused persons had not been objected to by the prosecution and further it (prosecution) as well had called in evidence the income tax returns/orders and thus, it cannot object to the admissibility of the records produced by the defence. To reiterate, even if such returns and orders are admissible, the probative value would depend on the nature of the information furnished, the findings recorded in the orders and having a bearing on the charge levelled. In any view of the matter, however, such returns and orders would not ipso facto either conclusively prove or disprove the charge and can at best be pieces of evidence which have to be evaluated along with the other materials on record. Noticeably, none of the Respondents has been examined on oath in the case in hand. Further, the income tax returns relied upon by the defence as well as the orders passed in the proceedings pertaining thereto have been filed/passed after the charge-sheet had been submitted. Significantly, there is a charge of conspiracy and abetment against the Accused persons. In the overall perspective therefore neither the income tax returns nor the orders passed in the proceedings relatable thereto, either definitively attest the lawfulness of the sources of income of the Accused persons or are of any avail to them to satisfactorily account the dis-proportionateness of their pecuniary resources and properties as mandated by Section 13(1)(e) of the Act.”
177. Now adverting to the facts of the case, A-1 before joining as P.A to Hon’ble Social Welfare Minister, he was working as an Advocate Clerk. Thiru.Hamid Sulthan and Thiru.Baskaran, Advocates under whom he was working as Clerk, had deposed that, they were paying Rs.2000/- per month to A-1 and used to get some tips as and when cases are filed. A-1 had no bank account and had no property in his name till he become as a Public Servant. There was no immovable and movable properties held by him.  Hence, a nominal amount of Rs.10,000/- been mentioned as assets held by the respondents/accused at the beginning of the 1^st check period.  A-2 who married A-1, at the beginning of the check period had no bank account or immovable property in her name till she married A-1.
178. The trial Court in its judgement while discussing about the assets held at the beginning of the 1^st check period, had made observations which is irrelevant and exposes the confusion in the mind of the trial Court Judge in appreciating the facts placed before her. Her observation is, ‘A1 had received Rs.2000/- to Rs.2500/- as salary per month and apart from that, he had received money when cases were filed. It is not elucidated or spoken as to how many cases were filed and what are the monies that were received by A-l to allege that, he had Rs.10,000/ as cash in hand tentatively. This cannot be inferred that, Rs.10,000/ was disproportionate to the known source of income of Al. The charges and allegations regarding Rs.10,000/ is vague and lack proper evidence. Similarly, with respect to A-2 no cash in hand was shown as on 01.07.1991 and hence, no charges were necessary to prove that, she was guilty.”   When there is no charge or allegation about holding Rs.10,000/- at the beginning of the check period as illegally, the trial Court had observed so, the unnecessary observation made by the trial Court indicates its lack of understanding of the facts of case as well as the Law.
179. A-1 appointed as Junior P.A to Hon’ble Minister (Private), with pay scale of Rs.1640-60-2600-75-2900 plus usual allowance. In addition, he was also eligible for Special Pay of Rs.100/- p.m and Conveyance Allowance under the orders in force. Therefore, when accumulation of wealth in his name and his wife name started after his appointment has to be relatable to his salary income since he had no other source of income before he assumed office as P.A to the Hon’ble Minister. Being a Public Servant, the Service and Conduct Rules and as well as the Prevention of Corruption Act mandates the first accused to give satisfactory explanation for the accumulation of wealth after assuming the Office.
180. In Annexure-II which contains particulars of assets as on 23.03.1994 (end of the 1^st check period), the item No.1 which is the immovable property acquired by A-2 on 27.12.1991 for Rs.37,500/-, within two months of her marriage with A-1. For registration of the sale deed, stamp duty of Rs.4560.00 and registration fees of Rs.350/- paid. Since then, the accumulation of wealth continued non-stop till the end. The assets found in possession of A1 and A2 at the end of the first check period and its worth are enlisted in Annexure-II of the final report.  
181. The trial Court, while considering the item No.1 which was purchased in the name of A-2, two months after he married A-2 had excluded the amount from which the assets acquired during the check period on the ground that, A-2 has given the written explanation marked as Ex.P.67, dated 19.07.1999 and the Income Tax Returns marked as Ex.P.53. The Income Tax Returns were filed on 12.02.1997, for the assessment year 1993-1994 under the self assessment scheme.  In her explanation Ex.P.67, she has claimed that, she belongs to an agricultural family and her parents have agricultural land in their native village.  She being an Arts Graduate taking classes for Tamil language and derive income. During her marriage, she got gift of Rs.1,87,610/- and same was disclosed in her Income Tax Returns.  The falsehood in the said

explanation is on two fold:- (i). First of all, for the claim of A-2 that her parents have agricultural land, have not supported through any document. She had not produced evidence to prove that her parents had any asset worth to lend money. (ii). Secondly, A-2 claims that, she got gift of Rs.1,87,610/- during her marriage. This gift was disclosed only after the Income Tax Department conducted search of her house and initiated Block Assessment process and particularly after the prosecution for disproportionate assets launched against her and her husband.

36. In S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay and Another reported in (1986) 2 SCC 716, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that, a Public Servant receiving gift as motive or reward from a person who has or is likely to have any business to be transacted is forbidden, though it may not be taken as a motive or reward for showing any official favour, it is likely to influence the public servant to show official favour to the person giving such valuable thing.

Though the above said observation may not apply to gifts received during the marriage which is probable and no need to suspect. In the instant case, mere names without details of the persons found in the list of cash gift relied by A-2 and accepted by the trial Court is vague and not possible to verify its veracity. This clearly indicate that, it is an invented Statement and after thought to get over the rigor of criminal prosecution.  Had a person in the year 1991 received marriage gift in cash, running to Rs.1.86 lakhs, then naturally they would have incurred proportionate amount of expenditure for the marriage function. Mere list of names and amount surfaced after launching prosecution but never disclosed earlier by the Public Servant to the Authority, to whom he ought to have disclosed, cannot be taken into account without corroboration. The trial Court unfortunately had accepted the list containing names and amount without other details to identify and make a cross check. The acceptance of returns filed before the Income Tax Authority belatedly disclosing the income also improbable since the income tax returns cannot be taken as proof for the source of income also.  The trial Court, for most of the items mentioned in Annexure-II in the 1^st check period as well as in the 2^nd check period had only referred and relied in the Income Tax returns filed belatedly as sufficient explanation for the source.

37. The trial Court had miserably failed to understand that, Income Tax Returns is only for the payment of tax for the income they derived. It can never be a proof for the legal source of the The prosecution under P.C Act, is for possessing wealth without sufficient explanation for the source.
38. Dealing the assets listed in Annexure-II, as far as item No.1, the explanation of A-1 that the money was from her mother and from the cash gift received during the marriage ought to have been rejected as no plausible for the reason stated above. In so far as Item No.2, in the Annexure-II which is the land and building at No.103 Dr.Ambedkar Road, Chennai, it was purchased jointly in the name of A-1 and A-2, while the sale deed mentions for sale consideration of Rs.1,90,000/- inclusion of stamp duty and registration fees. This property was purchased on 04.03.1992 whereas, the trial Court ignoring the sale deed, accepted the statement of vendor who happens to be the mother of A-2, who had said that, this property was gifted to her daughter and son-in-law. She has not received any sale consideration. A flimsy explanation been given by the vendor for not transferring the property by way of settlement which would have incurred less  stamp duty charges and registration fees.  This explanation ought not to have been accepted by the trial Court since it is contrary to the unambiguous document duly registered.  The oral evidence contrary to the documentary evidence can be accepted only if it is permissible under Section 92 of Indian Evidence Act.
39. The statement of the vendor and new found explanation given belatedly is an after thought,without any probative value. A sudden wind fall of wealth from unknown source of income now attempted to be made as a lawful acquisition of wealth for which, the Income Tax Returns filed belatedly after launching the prosecution been relied upon by the accused persons and same is accepted by the trial Court.  But the quantum of acquisition during the check period after A-1 became Junior P.A to Hon’ble Minister does not satisfy the minimum requirement of lawful source of income. For all the acquisition of wealth listed in Annexure-II which is estimated at the value of Rs.32,34,386/-. explanations that had income from various other sources or received cash gift or borrowed money from another tainted former public servant is readily accepted by the trial Court just because, the Income Tax Department has accepted the disclosure of income. Further, the trial court has gone to the extend of accepting a sale deed with specified consideration of Rs 90,000/- as a gift deed without consideration. The ridiculous and legally unsustainable explanation of A-2 that it was not purchased for consideration but was gifted to her free of costs  is accepted by the trial Court without testing the veracity and admissibility of the statements.
40. As far as item No.4 which is a house comprising of ground floor and 1^st floor at No.42, Brindavan Street Extension, West Mambalam, Chennai. This property was purchased on 06.01.1993 jointly by A2 and the mother of A1, three months prior to the purchase of this property, the next property bearing Door No.43 Brindavan Street Extension, West Mambalam, Chennai, was purchased on 07.10.1992 jointly in the name of A2 and the mother of A1. Hence 50% of the total value including the cost of the building, land and additional construction is arrived as Rs.5,51,811.50 for the item No.4 of the property and Rs.3,99,130.00, for the item No.5 of the property. While dealing with these two properties, the trial Court has held that, item No.4 is the house comprising ground and 1^st floor at Door No.42, Brindavan Street Extension, West Mambalam, which was purchased in the name of A2 and mother of A1 for Rs.5,51,811.50 inclusive of stamp duty and registration fees. The value of the additional construction claimed by the prosecution, the trial Court has declined to take into account the value of the additional construction.  The valuation report and plans for the building at No.43 Brindavan Street Extension, West Mambalam, Chennai, marked as Ex.P.14 to Ex.P.18 not taken into consideration but the admission of the valuer that the age of the building ascertained from I.O and no carbon dating was done on the property, the trial court has held that the report says Mr.R.Srinivasan, the brother of A-1 is occupying the property and the building in the property was constructed in the year 1981 and purchased with building. Therefore, the value assessed by the prosecution for additional construction been disbelieved by ignoring the recitals in Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6 which are the title deeds for these two properties. The vendor of these properties had purchased it on 12.10.1977. She had constructed only first floor in the year 1981. She had sold the land and 1^st floor to A-2 and the mother of  A-1. The sale consideration as found in the sale deed for the property bearing No.42 Brindavan Street Extension, West Mambalam, Chennai is Rs.6,00,000/-. The sale consideration for the property bearing No.43 Brindavan Street Extension, West Mambalam, Chennai is shown as Rs.4,00,000/-.  Both these documents while describing the schedule of the properties mentions land and building with 1^st Whereas, the valuation report and the plan for these two buildings as spoken by P.W.11 clearly show that, there is an additional construction over the building which was done by the owners of the building, after purchase of the property, who are A2 and the mother of A1, as per documents. In this regard, the Learned Government Advocate stated that, while taking into account the cost of the building in Door No: 43, Brindavan Street, instead of the ½ share of A-2 i.e., Rs.2,02,875/-, the prosecution had taken the entire Rs.4,05,750/-. Therefore, under statement of assets about Rs.2 lakhs has to be reduced.
41. The contention of the prosecution that, the construction was made in the year 1993 by the accused, after purchase of the property in the year 1992, is logic and in accordance with the documents. However, same is disbelieved by the trial Court because P.W.10 the valuer was not able to ascertain the exact year of its construction. So, the Trial Court had gone to the extend of saying that, even assuming that additional construction was made in the year 1992, nowhere, the valuer had mentioned as to what is the area of the additional construction made and no carbon dating test is made to fix the date of construction.
42. The evidence as disclosed through documents, without any doubt proves that these two properties purchased during the first check period with ill-gotten money, had been constructed further during the second check period. The cost of additional building though claimed to have met by Srinivasan the brother of A-1,the need to contribute his money for putting up additional construction on the property which stands in the name of his mother and A-2, and his source to contribute the fund were not convincingly established. However, the trial court had taken these explanations as gospel truth without subjecting it to the basic test required for proof of a fact as laid in the Indian Evidence Act. P.18 is the plan approval for the 1^st floor granted by the local body in the year 1981. Despite the fact that, Ex.P.13 and Ex.P.16 provides the details of construction and the value for item Nos.4 & 5 the trial court had wantonly observed that the valuation report lack details.
43. Except the salary income of A-1, for purchase of these properties less than a year after becoming a public servant, no tangible legal source been disclosed by the accused. However the trial Court without any prudence, had relied upon the income tax returns filed by A-2, declaring her opening cash balance as 1,82,610/- which includes income from agricultural land, sale of gold jewels, income from private tuition besides loan from Mr.R.Srinivasan the brother of A1.  All these disclosures had come to light only after the prosecution. Further, as pointed out earlier, there was no agricultural land at all till A-1 become a public servant and on the day A-2 married A-1.  While so, without any compunction, the trial Court has readily taken the explanation given by the accused. Specifically, weightage been given by the trial Court while accepting the explanation of the accused that, they borrowed money from Srinivasan and disclosure of the transaction in the Income Tax returns marked as Ex.P.63 wherein it is stated that the additional construction and modification whatever done was by R.Srinivasan at his cost and not by A-2.  It is pertinent to record at this juncture that, R.Srinivasan the brother of A-1 was a former Lab Technician in ONGC, Chennai, during the relevant period and was prosecuted by C.B.I for possessing disproportionate assets.  However, sensing trouble, the said R.Srinivasan got VRS and therefore, when prosecution was launched against him on the premise that, he is a public servant and his misconduct is liable to be punished under Prevention of Corruption Act, the trial Court found that before registration of the regular case, at the time of preliminary enquiry itself R.Srinivasan got VRS and therefore, he cannot be brought under the definition of Public Servant for the purpose of prosecuting under the P.C Act. Further, he did not filed his Income Tax returns periodically but only after he and his brother A-1 caught under the scanner of Income Tax Department and the prosecuting agencies of the Central and State Government had come forward to declare their Income to the Income Tax Authority. This declaration by no stretch of imagination will satisfy the requirement under the P.C Act, as explained under Section 19(1)(e) of P.C Act. It is unfortunate that, for the wealth listed in Annexure-II, more or less similar explanations been given by the accused persons and unfortunately without any test of its veracity same been accepted by the trial court.  The rest of the items in serial Nos.6, 7 and 8 they are agricultural land in Kattampatti Village, Avanashi Taluk, Coimbatore District, to tune of about 10 acres purchased under three sale deeds marked as Ex.P.19 to Ex.P.21. The source is explained as income from the other properties acquired during the check period and same is accepted by the trial Court. When the property which has been shown as source of income itself been acquired by illegal means and illegal source, the income from that illegally acquired property and property purchased from that illegal income should also be taken as assets acquired by the illegal source.  The property purchased from illegal income also become a tainted property. The new property acquired from the income of illegally acquired property does not get white washed to assume the character of legally acquired wealth.
44. Regarding the shares in M/s.Talent Steel Industries Pvt Ltd in the name of A-2, the accused has explained that, it was given at free of cost for giving her property as collateral security and no consideration paid by A-2 for the acquisition of the said shares. The fact of getting 3500 shares with face value of Rs.100/- given as quid pro quo for giving property as collateral security ought to have been proved by the accused by letting evidence since the fact is asserted by the accused.  Contrarily, the trial Court had held that, the prosecution has not examined any witness from M/s.Talent Steel Industries (P) Ltd though one of the Director of the said Company shown in the listed witness and further, the trial Court has also gone to the extent of saying that, the face value of the 3500 shares cannot be taken as its value since it is not a listed Company.  Therefore, had excluded Rs.3,50,000/- from the assets acquired during the check period.  The fallacy in the reason given by the trial Court is on two fold.  (i). Firstly, 3500 share certificates on the face of it proves that each values for Rs.100/- and it is allotted to A-2 while so, any thing contrary to these two facts found on the share certificates ought to be proved by the defence and not by the prosecution. (ii). Secondly, the accused had not denied the recovery of share certificates from their possession or the ownership of the share certificates. Their explanation for the source of procuring the shares certificates is a matter exclusively within their knowledge and it is for them to explain the source.  The fundamental law of evidence totally been ignored by the trial Court while considering the evidence placed by the prosecution in this regard.
45. In Item No.11 of Annexure-II, the prosecution has included Rs.61,000/-, Rs.1,26,000/- and Rs.49,000/- being the value of shares purchased by A-2 from M/s.Sri Ramdoss during the period 1992-93 and 1993-94. Again the explanation given by the accused persons referring the income derived by the other property acquired during the check period, besides the income tax returns filed without any proof accepted by the trial Court.
46. The balance in the five Bank accounts mentioned under item Nos.12 to 16, in their individual names as well as joint name also not taken into account by the trial Court as assets held in the Bank accounts. Item Nos.12 to 16 are the bank balance in the name of A-1 and A-2 either individually or jointly.  17,683/- is the balance as per the passbook and bank accounts found as on 23.03.1994. Besides, that the prosecution has taken into account, Rs.2,12,000/- as cash in hand during the end of check period. This is based on the asset acquired by A-1 and A-2, in 6 weeks between the first and second check period and the explanation given by them.
47. A dispassionate examination of evidence and the reasons given by the trial Court to disbelieve the case of the prosecution insofar as the assets acquired by the accused persons during the first check period which is enumerated in Annexure – II, this Court finds that, the value of the properties mentioned in item Nos.1 to 16 to be added as an assets held during the check period without minor modification since the prosecution had proved the acquisition of the property by the accused persons and its value.
48. As far as the cash of Rs.2,12,000/- as on 23.03.1994, it is to be noted that, the 2^nd check period commenced on 06.05.1994. In these 43 days between 1^st check period and 2^nd check period, there is a raise in the bank balance maintained in the five bank account, besides A-2 had also purchased land in Kattampatti Village, Avanashi Taluk, worth Rs.1,40,000/- and Rs.42,750/- under two sale deeds dated 18.04.1994 and 19.04.1994. For purchase of these two properties as well as increase in the bank balance, the prosecution has presumed that, these properties were purchased from out of cash in hand, left at the end of the 1^st check period. Since, it is purely based on the presumption drawn after lapse of three years though may be probable, it is also impossible to exactly ascertain how much cash the accused persons had in their hand. Since the asset and income for the second check period with the value of the asset at the beginning of check period is to be scrutinised in Crl.A.No.446 of 2023, the benefit is extended to the accused persons by excluding Rs.2,12,000/- mentioned as the cash in hand in Annexure II. From out of total value of Rs.32,34,386.00 shown under Annexure-II, a sum of Rs.2,12,000/- ought to be excluded. Besides one more item in this annexure requires minor deductions.

ANNEXURE – II

  Particulars of assets as on 23.03.1994 (End of 1^st    check period) in the name of R.Vengatakrishnan (accused-1) and his wife Tmt.V.Manjula (accused2)

Sl.No.	Particulars of Assets of R.Venkatakrishnan	Value Rs.	Date of Acquisition
1.	Agricultural land Measuring 1.89 acres in S.No.53/1 in Keelkudalur               Village,                       Tindivanam                 Taluk (Doc.No.551/91 of Joint Registrar, Tindivanam) purchased in the name of Tmt.Manjula executed by Kamalabai W/o.Gopalakrishnan. Stamp Duty Registration fees	37,500.00 4,560.00	27.12.91

 

Sl.No.	Particulars of Assets of R.Venkatakrishnan	Value Rs.	Date of Acquisition
2.	1st floor of the building Measuring 1278.25 sq.ft At Plot No.C 238-B, Door No.103, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Chennai-24, jointly in the names of R.Venkatakrishnan and his wife Tmt.V.Manjula, executed by Tmt.Kamalakshiammal and Tr.Varadarajan (A1 Mother in Law) (Doc No.1072/92 of SRO Kodambakkam). Stamp duty Registration fees	1,90,000.00 49,581.50 4,298.50	04.03.1992
3.	Shop measuring 503 sq.ft in the name of Tr.R.Venkatakrishnan executed by Tmt.Kamalakshi ammal (A1 Mother in Law) situated in the ground floor of the building at No.103 Dr.Ambedkar Road, Kodambakkam Chennai-24 (Doc.No.1073/92) of SRO Kodambakkam Stamp Duty Registration Fees	90,000.00 17,883.50 1,490.00	04.03.1992
4.	No.42 Brindavan Street Extn. West Mambalam, Chennai-33, House ground and 1st floor of piece of land part thereof Jointly in the name of Tmt.V.Manjula and Tmt.R.Sakunthala. executed by Tmt.Sundari (Doc. No.43/93) of SRO Kodambakkam. Land Value   3,67,320+ Building        2,32,680/- 6,00,000/- Investment      6,00,000     = Made in the          2 Name of Tmt.V.Manjula Stamp duty      1,11,000 2 Regn.fees           9,040 2	3,00,000.00 55,500.00 4,520.00	06.01.1993

 

Sl.No.	Particulars of Assets of R.Venkatakrishnan	Value Rs.	Date of Acquisition
	Value of Addl. Building               11,03.623 as per                         2 evaluation	5,51,811.50
5.	No.43, Brindavan Street Extn, West Mambalam, Chennai-33, House ground and 1st floor of piece of land part there of jointly in the names of Tmt.V.Manjula and Tmt.R.Sakunthala (Doc.No.4764/92) of SRO Kodambakkam executed by Tmt.Savithiri W/o.Rajagopalan Land Value     5,97,600+ Building Vale  2,13,900 8,11,500 Investment made in the          8,11,500 name of  Tmt.V.Manjula             2 Stamp Duty           1,05,500/2 Registration fees       8,155/2 Value of Additional construction of building      7,98,260 as per evaluation                       2	4,05,750.00 52,750.00 4,077.50 3,99,130.00	07.10.1992
6.	Land measuring 2.07 acres in Kattampatti village, Avanashi (TK) Coimbatore, (Doc. No.1682/93 of SRO Annur) in the name of Tmt.V.Manjula executed by Kalaisami, S.Eswaran, Kannammal, Kandasamy Stamp duty Registration Fees	49,950.00 10,000.00 875.00	29.12.1993
7.	Land measuring 4 acres in Kattampatti village, Avanashi (TK) Coimbatore, (Doc. No.43/94 of SRO Annur) in the name of Tmt.V.Manjula. Executed by Papathi @ Palaiyammal, Lakshmanan and Sarasammal Stamp duty Registration fees	96,000.00 18,000.00	17.01.1994

 

Sl.No.	Particulars of Assets of R.Venkatakrishnan	Value Rs.	Date of Acquisition
		1,525.00
8.	Land measuring 3.93 acres in Kattampatti village, Avanashi (TK) Coimbatore, (Doc. No.34/94 of SRO Annur) in the name of Tmt.V.Manjula. Executed by Arumuga Gownder sons Palanisamy and  Subbukutty Stamp duty Registration fees	65,000.00 7,500.00 650.00	17.01.1994
9.	Gold Jewels with A-1 and A-2 after sale of 563.400 grms. is 680.600 grms.	Nil	23.03.1994
10.	3500 shares of M/S Talent Steel Industries Pvt.Ltd. of Rs. 100/- each in the name of Tmt.V.Manjula.	3,50,000.00	Between 06.12.1993 & 09.02.1994
11.	(a) Investment made in the name of Tmt.V.Manjula in the company “Sri Ramdoss Finance Pvt.Ltd, for the year 1992-93 (as per IT Returns) (b).Additional Investment made in the name of Tmt.V.Manjula in the company “Sri Ramdoss Finance Pvt.Ltd, for the year 1993-94 (1260 shares as Rs.100/per share) (c). I Additional Investment made in the name of Tmt.V.Manjula in the company “Sri Ramdoss Finance Pvt.Ltd, for the year 1993-94 (as per IT Returns)	61,000.00 1,26,000.00 49,000.00	1992-93 1993-94 1993-94
12.	Bank balance in Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. T.Nagar, Chennai-17 name of Tr.R.Venkatakrishnan in Account No.3053 as on 23.3.94.	426.00	23.03.1994
13.	Bank balance in Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. T.Nagar, Chennai-17 name of Tr.R.Venkatakrishnan in Account No.3051 as on 23.3.94	3,010.00	23.03.1994
14.	Bank balance in State Bank of India T.Nagar, Chennai17 name of Tr.V.Manjula in Account No.2552 as on 23.3.94	2,217.00	23.03.1994
15.	Bank balance in Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. T.Nagar, Chennai-17 name of Tr.V.Manjula and	10,984.50	23.03.1994
Sl.No.	Particulars of Assets of R.Venkatakrishnan	Value Rs.	Date of Acquisition
	Tmt.R.Sakunthala Jointly in Account No.3324 as on 23.3.94 share of Tmt.V.Manjula 21,969.00 2
16.	Bank balance in Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. T.Nagar, Chennai-17 name of Tr.V.Manjula in Account No.3055 as on 23.3.94	1,045.80	23.03.1994
17.	Cash in hand	2,12,000.00	23.03.1994
	Total	32,34,386.00

 

49. The learned Government Advocate for the appellant submits that, regarding item No.5 mentioned above, the total investment jointly made by A-2 and the mother of A-1 wrongly taken note, the correct investment made by A-2 is Rs.2,00,000/- only and not Rs.4,05,750/-. Likewise, the bank balance in item No.14, at the end of first check period was only Rs.1000/- and not Rs.2217/-, in addition, Rs.2,12,000/- shown as cash in hand at the end of the check period to be deleted.  Hence, the value of the asset at the end of first check period is arrived as Rs.28,15,419/- instead of Rs.32,34,386/- which was fixed by the prosecution.
50. Income during the Check Period:-

The total salary income of A-1 during the 1^st check period is

Rs.1,18,708.00. The receipt issued by Salem Stores, No.374, Bazaar Street, Salem, for sale of 218.700 grams of gold jewels by A-1 and sale of 113.4 grams of gold jewels; sale of 231.300 grams of jewels by A-2 to Salem stores totalling for sum of Rs.1,96,740/-. The prosecution besides taking the salary income of A-1, a sum of Rs.1,18,708/- and sale of golds jewels for sum of Rs.1,96,740/- and rental income received from Door No.43, Brindavan Street Extension, West Mambalam, Chennai and Door No.103, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Chennai, gifts received during the marriage, cash gifts received at the time of marriage reception of the accused 1 and 2 and income from investments in finance institution and bank were all taken into consideration for total sum of Rs.8,73,347.00 as listed below in the income during the check period as per the prosecution.

51. The trial Court besides the income mentioned in Annexure-III, relying upon the Income Tax Returns filed in the year 1997 declaring their income for the period 1991-1992, 1993-1994 onwards showing the agricultural income of different firm and income from other sources like tuition and loan from brother of A-1 were taken into account and given credit.
52. The trial Court has relied upon Ex.P.53, the Income Tax Returns of A-2 for the said purpose. The filing of Income Tax returns after launching of prosecution and search conducted by Income Tax Department declaring income from imaginary source or inflated income from the source which they derive less returns and has no probative value in a criminal prosecution. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has, time and again, in various cases had laid down this principle and mandated the Court to access the evidence independently to arrive at a conclusion whether the assets held by the public servant is truly by legal source.
53. Relying upon the Income Tax Returns filed by A1 & A2 for the year 1992-1993, in the month of February-1997, the trial Court had fixed the opening cash balance and the agricultural income as declared by A-1 and A-2 been taken into account. Rs.45,000/- as income derived from agriculture between 1991 to 1994 and Rs.24,000/- from taking tuition, Totally Rs.69,000/- been added to the income under Annexure-III. Though Rs.69,000/- is very minimal,the reason given by the trial Court for adding this amount is unreasonable.  In the year 1991-1992 or 1992-1993, there was no agricultural property at all in the name of A1 & A2, what they acquired was only after 1991. The acquisition of agricultural land in the name of his spouse not been disclosed to the Competent Authority by A-1 which is the mandatory requirement for any public servant as per the Conduct Rules.  The accused had came forward to disclose their assets and income only after substantial portion of the hidden wealth was unearthed by the Income Tax Department during the search proceedings. Therefore, the reason for the trial Court to include Rs.69,000/- under the head of income is found to be baseless.
54. As per the case of the prosecution, the legal source of income for A-1 and A-2 during the check period is shown in Annexure-III and for accumulation of these assets valued at Rs.28,15,419/-, the source and the income derived by A-1 and A-2, during the first check period is as below:- ANNEXURE – III

Statement of Income of the Tr.R.Venkatakrishnan (Accused-1) and   Tmt.V.Manjula (Accused-2) during the 1^st    check period from 01.07.1991 to 23.03.1994.

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount	Date
1.	Net pay & Allowance and other arrears of Tr.R.Venkatakrishnan from 1.7.1991 to 23.3.96	1,18,708.00	01.07.1991 to 23.03.1994
2.	From sale of 218.700 grms of gold Jewellery by Tr.R.Venkatakrishnan to Salem Stores, 374 Bazaar Street, Salem-1.	77,400.00	02.12.92
3.	From sale of 113.4 grams of old jewels by Tr.R.Venkatakrishnan Salem stores.	39,150.00	02.12.92
4.	Cash gifts received at time of marriage by Tr.R.Venkatakrishnan.	2,40,057.00	21.10.1991
5.	From sale of 231.300 grams of old gold jewels by Tmt.V.Manjula to Salem stores.	80,190.00	02.12.92
6.	Rent received by Tmt.V.Manjula & Tmt. Sakunthala towards letting out premises No.43, Brindavan Street Extn, West Mambalam, Chennai-33 to the Director (EIOB INSTALLATION TAMIL NADU CIRCLE, 48, Brindavan Street, Extn, West Mambalam, Chennai-33.	29,250.00	01.10.1993 to 23.03.1994
7.	Rent received by Tmt.V.Manjula for the 1st floor of the building at Plot No.238-B, Door No.103, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Chennai-24 and shops 7 & 7-A at ground floor	54,000.00	For the year 1993-94
8.	Cash gifts received by Tmt.V.Manjula at her reception.	1,87,610.00	21.10.1991
9.	Income from Sree Ramadoss Finance Pvt.Ltd.	14,000.00	1993-94
10.	Agricultural Income from land purchased at Keelkudalur Tmt.Manjula (1992-Rs.5000/-, 1993- Rs.20,000/-, 1994-Rs.20,000/-= Rs,45,000)	31,000.00	1991-92 to 1993-94
11.	To interest in SB A/C 3053 of Tr.R.Venkatakrishnan in Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. T.Nagar Branch.	10.00	10.03.1994 15.03.1994
Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount	Date
		10.00
12.	To interest in SB A/C 3051 of Tr.R.Venkatakrishnan in Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. T.Nagar Branch	854.00	10.03.1994
13.	To interest in SB A/C 2552 of State Bank of India, T.Nagar Branch in the name of Tmt.V.Manjula	60.00 157.00	15.09.1992 22.04.1993
14.	To interest in SB A/C 3324 of Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. T.Nagar Branch jointly in the names of Tmt.V.Manjula & Tmt.Sakunthala (mother of Tr.R.Venkatakrishnan) share of Tmt.V.Manjula is 76/2.	38.00	10.03.1994
15.	To interest in A/C No.3055 of Tmt.Manjula in Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. T.Nagar Branch.	421.00 432.00	15.09.1993 10.03.1994
	Total	8,73,347.00

 

55. Regarding the expenditure mentioned in Annexure-IV, the Learned Government Advocate for the appellant/state conceals that, the error of including the children to arrive estimated family consumption. The birth of two children was subsequent to the check period as pointed out by the trial Court and therefore, the estimated family consumption for five persons including two children requires modification. However, the trial Court had totally omitted to take into consideration the estimated family consumption for three persons consisting of accused and the mother of A1.
56. Regarding the rent paid by the accused for the premises at No.26/1, Hospital Road, Subbuthottam, T.Nagar, Chennai, the prosecution has taken Rs.600/- per month as rent during the check period and sum of

Rs.18,600/- and Rs.1800/- towards electricity charge been added under the

Statement of expenditure. In this connection, the owner of the premises Ms.Deivanai examined as P.W.22 by the prosecution contrary to her previous statement, she had deposed that, A-2 was taking tuition, hence she was declared hostile.

57. The trial Court had relied upon the evidence of hostile witness had observed that, A-1 paid Rs.1 lakh advance to Ms.Deivanai (P.W.22) when he occupied the premises in the year 1990 and got back the advance amount, when he vacated the premises. However, the evidence of P.W.22 is that, when A-1 vacated the premises in the year 1995, she deducted the rental due and returned the balance. Rs.1 lakh advance which is not said in her previous statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. It is not even the case of the accused. Further, the trial Court had improvised the deposition of P.W.22, observed that, Rs.1 lakh advance received by P.W.22 is an interest free lease amount. Whereas, P.W.22 had deposed that, she let out the premises to A-1 for monthly rent of Rs.600/- and electricity charge of Rs.1,200/- p.m. Totally, the rent was Rs.1800/- and she received Rs.1 lakh as advance,  which she returned back in the year 1995, when the accused vacated the premises after deducting the rental due. While the evidence of P.W.22 is to that extent, the trial Court imaginarily had presumed that, Rs.1 lakh was interest free lease amount and returned when A-1 vacated.  The trial Court has observed so, in order to exclude the rental expenditure of A1 & A2 during the 1^st check period.
58. The prosecution has shown the marriage expense for A-1 as Rs.72,000/-, whereas, the trial Court has excluded this expense on the ground that, it is only a presumptive value without any evidence. However without any reasonable proof, the trial Judge had accepted the explanation given by A1 & A2 regarding the cash gifts received at the time of marriage to tune of Rs.2,40,057/- and Rs.1,87,610/- as cash gift received at the marriage reception. The peak of perversity in appreciation of evidence by the trial Court would be easily seen from the way he has accepted the gift during marriage and reception but declined to accept the expenditure incurred for the marriage.
59. The trial Court unreasonably had concluded that, in the 1^st check period, almost the appellant had no expenditure at all. The said conclusion is perverse and suffice to hold that the judgement of the trial Court without any application of mind. The heads of expenditure as alleged by the prosecution is as below:-

ANNEXURE – IV

Statement of Expenditure of the Tr.R.Venkatakrishnan (Accused-1) and   Tmt.V.Manjula (A-2) during the 1  ^st  check period from 01.07.1991 to 23.03.1994.

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount	Date
1.	Estimated family consumption expenditure of Tr.R.Venkatakrishnan (Accused) family members consisting of himself, his wife Tmt.Manjula his mother and two children.	73,863.75	01.07.1991 to 23.03.1994
2.	House rent paid by Tr.R.Venkatakrishnan during his stay with his family in the ground portion of the house at No.26/1.Hospital Road, Subbuthottam, T.Nagar, Chennai-17, at the rate of Rs.600/- per month.	18,600.00	01.06.1991 to 31.12.1993
3.	Electricity charges paid by Tr.R.Venkatakrishnan while staying in the above house.	1,800.00	-do-
4.	Personal drawing and expenditure incurred for the Marriage of Tr.R.Venkatakrishnan.	72,000.00	1991-92
5.	Contribution to Navanidhi Chit Fund during check period.	11,000.00	23.03.1994
	Total	1,77,263.75

 

60. The prosecution, while calculating the estimated family consumption, the expenditure for the family of the accused during the first check period has taken into account 5 members (the spouse (A-1and A-2) , the mother of A-1 and the two children). However, it is proved that during the first check period the children were not born. Therefore, the consumption expenditure which should have be arrived only for 3 persons and not for 5 persons. To that extend, the consumption expenditure of Rs.73,863.75 arrived under Annexure-IV ought to be reduced to Rs.44,318.25 and consequently the total expenditure during the first check period shall be Rs.(1,77,263.75 – 29,545.50) = Rs.1,47,718/-.
61. After re-apprising the evidences and ascertaining the value of the assets held at the end of the check period and viz-a-viz the lawful income of the accused, the asset held disproportional to the known source of income comes around 237% as against the prosecution calculation of 289%.

Annexure – V

(Statement-II) Assets that stood to the credit of A-1 and A-2 as on 23.3.94	Rs.28,15,419.00
(Statement-1) Assets that stood to the credit of A-1 and A-2 as on 1.7.91	Rs.    10,000.00
Assets acquired by the A-1 between 01.07.91 and 23.03.1994	Rs.28,05,419.00

Annexure – VI

Income of A-1 and A-2 (Statement-III)	Rs.8,73,347.00
Expenditure of A-1 and A-2 (Statement – IV)	Rs.1,47,718.25
Likely saving of A-1 and A-2	Rs.7,35,628,25

Annexure – VII

Assets acquired during the check period	Rs.28,05,419.00
Likely saving	Rs.  7,35,628,25
Disproportionate assets	Rs.20,69,790.75

Percentage of D.P Assets =( Statement-VII / Statement III X 100 ) =

20,69,790.75   x 100                                    =    236.99%    8,73,347

Rounded off to 237%

62. Crl.A.No.446 of 2023 against Spl.C.C.No.89 of 2011

 

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State in respect of II check

period commencing from 06.05.1994 and ending on 30.04.1996.  In between the 1^st check period and 2^nd check period, the accused A-2 has purchased two properties of land measuring 6.36 acres in Kattampatti village, Avanashi Taluk for sum of Rs.1,40,000/- and land measuring 1.86 acres in the same village for sum of Rs.42,750/-, the stamp duty and registration expenses along with costs of these two lands is Rs.2,11,666/-.  The Learned Government Advocate had given statement of assets had mentioned that, Rs.2 lakhs in item No.5 been added in excess and same been taken note while assessing the value of the assets held by the A-1 and A-2 during the 1^st check period. It is also to be noted that, two properties and small variation in the deposits laying in the bank account and cash in hand, as contended by the prosecution are from other source not disclosed.  The cash in hand of Rs.2,12,000/- claimed by the prosecution has been omitted in the assets held at the end of the 1^st check period, since the claim of the accused been accepted and extended benefit of doubt in their favour. Therefore, it is to be noted that, while the value of the assets held at the end of the check period for Rs.28,15,419/-. At the commencement of the 2^nd check period after giving reduction of Rs.2 lakhs for item No.5, the asset as on 06.05.1994 at the beginning of the check period has to be fixed as Rs.30,33,191.50.  Since the Annexure-II item Nos.17 & 18 worth Rs.2,11,666/- alone are new addition, beside a marginal increase in the Bank Balance of Rs.860.50/- rest of the items are repetition found in assets at the end of the 1^st check period.

  Particulars of Assets as on 06.05.1994 (beginning of 2^nd    check

period) in the name of R.Vengatakrishnan (Accused) and his wife Tmt.V.Manjula:-

Sl.No.	Particulars of Assets of R.Venkatakrishnan	Value Rs.	Date of Acquisition
17.	Land measuring 6.36 acres in Kattampatti Village, Avanashi (TK) Coimbatore, (Doc.No.671/94) of SRO Annur) in the name of Tmt.V.Manjula, executed by Tr.Shanmugam and others. Stamp duty	1,40,000.00 16,800.00	18.04.1994
Sl.No.	Particulars of Assets of R.Venkatakrishnan	Value Rs.	Date of Acquisition
	Registration fees	1,400.00
18.	Land measuring 1.86 acres in Kattampatti Village, Avanashi Taluk, Coimbatore, (Doc.No.673/94) of SRO, Annur in the name of Tmt.V.Manjula. Stamp duty Registration fees	42,750.00 9,400.00 1,316.00	19.04.1994
		(+) 28,15,419
	Increase in Bank balance (5 Accounts)	860.50

Hence, assets at the beginning of the II check period is Rs.30,34,052/-

ANNEXURE – II

  Particulars of assets as on 30.04.1996 (end of the 2^nd    check period) in the name of R.Vengatakrishnan (Accused) and his wife Tmt.V.Manjula (Accused-2)

Sl. No.	Particulars of Assets of R.Venkatakrishnan	Value	Date of Acquisition
1.	Agricultural land Measuring 1.89 in S.No.53/1 in Keelkudalur          Village,          Tindivanam          Taluk (DOC.No.551/91 of Joint Registrar, Tindivanam) in favour Tmt.Manjula executed by Kamalabai, Dhanajayan, Hableraj. Stamp duty Registration fees	37,500.00       4,560.00 350.00	27.12.1991
2.	1st floor of the building Measuring 1278.25 sq.ft At Plot No.0 238-B, Door No.103, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Chennai24, jointly in the names of R.Venkatakrishnan and his wife Tmt.V.Manjula, executed by Tmt.Kamalakshi ammal and Tr.Varadarajan (Al Mother in Law) (Doc No.1072/92 of SRO Kodambakkam). Stamp duty	1,90,000.00         49,581.50 4,298 50	04.03.1992

 

	Registration fees
3.	Shop measuring 503 sq.ft in the name of Tr.R.Venkatakrishnan executed by Tmt.Kamalakshi ammal (Al Mother in Law) situated in the ground floor of the building at No.103 Dr.Ambedkar Road, Chennai24 (Doc.No.1073/92) of SRO Kodambakkam Stamp duty Registration fees	90,000.00   17,883.50 1,490.00	04.03.1992
4.	No.42, Brindavan Street Extn. West Mambalam, Chennai-33, House ground and 1st floor of piece of land part thereof Jointly in the name of Tmt.V.Manjula and Tmt.R.Sakunthala.                 executed                     by                       Tmt.Sundari (Doc.No.43/93) of SRO Kodambakkam. Land Value    3,67,320 + Building         2,32,680/- 6,00,000/- Investment      6,00,000     = Made in the          2 Name of Tmt.V.Manjula Stamp duty 1,11,000 2 Regn.fees      9,040 2 Value of Addl. Building as per         11,03,623 evaluation                       2	3,00,000.00 55,500.00 4,520.00 5,51,811.50	06.01.1993
5.	No.43, Brindavan Street Extn, West Mambalam, Chennai – 33, House ground and 1st floor of piece of land part thereof jointly in the names of Tmt.V.Manjula and Tmt.R.Sakunthala (Doc.No.4764/92) of SRO, Kodambakkam executed by Tmt.Savithiri W/o.Rajagopalan. Land Value        5,97,900 + Buld Value         2,13,900 8,11,500 Investment by in the name            8,11,500		07.10.1992

 

	of Tmt.V.Manjula            2 ** Reduced to Rs.2,00,000/Stamp duty Registration Fee Value of additional Construction of Building as per evaluation                         7,89,260 2	4,05,750.00 52,750.00 4,077.50 3,99,130.00
6.	Land measuring 2.07 acres in Kattampatti village, Avanashi (TK) Coimbatore, (Doc.No.1682/93 of SRO Annur) in the name of Tmt.V.Manjula Executed by Kalaisami, S. Eswaran, Kannammal, Kandasamy. Stamp duty Registration fees	49,950.00     10,000.00 875.00	29.12.1993
7.	Land measuring 4 acres in Kattampatti village, Avanashi (TK) Coimbatore, (Doc.No.43/94 of SRO Annur) in the name of Tmt.V.Manjula Executed by Papathi @ Palaiyammal, Lakshmanan and Sarasammal. Stamp duty Registration fees	96,000.00   18,000.00 1,525.00
8.	Land measuring 3.93 acres in Kattampatti village, Avanashi (TK) Coimbatore, (Doc.No.34/94 of SRO Annur) in the name of Tmt.V.Manjula Executed by Arumuga Gownder sons Palanisamy and Subbukutty. Stamp duty Registration Fees	65,000.00   7,500.00 650.00	17.01.1994
9.	Out of 3062 gms. of gold jewellery found in the house of R.Venkatakrishnan, at No.10, 79th Street, 18th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai-83, as recorded by IT officials during the search of his house on 13.2.96. 1216.600 gms. of gold jewels were accounted for. The balance of 1845.40 gms. of gold Jewellery were unaccounted. Therefore the value of 1845.40 gms. at Rs.447 per gm.	8,24,893.00	06.05.1994
10.	3500 shares of M/S Talent Steel Industries Pvt.Ltd. of Rs.100/- each in the name of Tmt.V.Manjula.	3,50,000.00	06.12.1993 &

 

			09.02.1994
11.	(a) Investment made in the name of Tmt.V.Manjula in the company “Sri Ramdoss Finance Pvt.Ltd, for the year 1992-93 (as per IT Returns) (b).Additional Investment made in the name of Tmt.V.Manjula in the company “Sri Ramdoss Finance Pvt.Ltd, for the year 1993-94 (1260 shares ar Rs 100/-per share) (c). Additional Investment made in the name of Tmt.V.Manjula in the company “Sri Ramdoss Finance Pvt.Ltd, for the year 1993-94 (as per IT Returns)	61,000.00   1,26,000.00   49,000.00	1992-93 1993-94 1993-94
12.	Additional Investment made in the name of Tmt.V.Manjula in “Sri Ramdoss Finance Pvt.Ltd. during the year 1994-95 (4490 shares at Rs.100/- per share)	4,49,000.00	1994-95
13.	Investment made in the name by Tr.R.Venkatakrishnan in “Sri Ramdoss Finance Pvt. Ltd. during the year 199394 (250 shares at Rs.100/- per share)	25,000.00	1994-95
14.	Land measuring 6.36 acres in Kattampatti Village, Avanashi (TK) Coimbatore, (Doc.No.671/94 of SRO, Annur) in the name of Tmt.V.Manjula executed by Shanmugam, Arunachalam, Ramasamy, Gurusamy, Mailsamy, Vadivelu, Karupusamy, Balamani. Stamp duty Registration fees	1,40,000.00       16,800.00 1,400.00	18.04.1994
15.	Land measuring 1.86 acres in Kattampatti Village, Avanashi (TK) Coimbatore, (Doc.No.673/94 of SRO Annur), in the name of Tmt.V.Manjula executed by Muthan. Stamp duty Registration fees	42,750.00     9,400.00 1,316.00
16.	Shop bearing No.7 & 7A having an area of 302.5sq.ft situated in the ground floor of the building at No.103 Dr.Ambedkar Road, Chennai – 24, jointly in the names of R.Venkatakrishnan and his wife Tmt.Manjula (Doc.No.1892/95 of SRO Kodambakkam). Stamp duty	1,90,000.00       24,700.00 1,940.00	31.03.1995

 

	Registration fees
17.	Wet land measuring 3 acres and 77 cents in S.No.326/4C in Saram Village, Tindivanam Taluk, in the name of Tr.R.Venkatakrishnan (Doc.No.355/95 of SRO Avvaraipakkam Tindivanam (TK). Stamp duty Registration fees	90,000.00     10,910.00 910.00
18.	Wet land in S.No.326/1-B 0.58 acres, S.No.326/4-B, 2.91 acres S.No.326/2, 0.40 acres total 3.89 acres of Saram Village, Tindivanam Taluk, in the name of Tr.R.Venkatakrishnan (Doc.No.360 of 2995 of SRO Avvaraipakkam Tindivanam (TK). Stamp duty Registration fees	90,000.00       11,260.00 960.00	30.03.1995
19.	Wet land measuring 6 acres and 21 cents in S.No.137/1, S.No.137/2, now No.323 & Wet land measuring 9 acres and 30 cents to new S.No.325/7, Saram Village, Tindivanam Taluk, (Doc.No.356/95 of SRO Avvaraipakkam, Tindivanam in the name of Tmt.V.Manjula. Stamp duty Registration fees	1,00,000.00           12,621.00 1,095.00	30.03.1995
20.	House ground & premises at No.210, GST Road, Chormpet, Anna District, measuring 170 cents, each person getting 1/5 undivided shares i.e. 34 cents. (Doc.No.4913/94 of SRO Pallavaram) in the name of Tmt.V.Manjula. Stamp duty Registration fees	8,80,000.00       1,05,000.00 8,870.00	09.11.1994
21.	Silver articles 20.490 kgs found in the house of R.Venkatakrishnan at No.10, 79th Street, 18th Avenue Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 83, as recorded by I.T officials during the search of his house on 13.02.1996.	Nil
22.	Indian Currency Notes found in the house of R.Venkatakrishnan at No.10, 79th Street, 18th Avenue Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 83, as recorded by I.T officials during the search of his house on 13.02.1996.	97,980.00	13.02.1996
23.	Foreign Currency Notes	51,240.85	13.02.1996

 

	Singapore Currency          – 608 Honkong Currency            – 1360 American Currency           – 650 U.K.Currency                     – 110 Malaysian Currency           –    5 (found in the house of R.Venkatakrishnan at No.10, 79th Street, 18th Avenue Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 83, as recorded by I.T Officials during the search of his house on 13.02.1996)
24.	UTI Rajalakshmi Unit Plan (ii) 15000 units at Rs.10/- per unit Nos.300960070001078 purchased by Tmt.V.Manjula in the name of her daughter V.Priyadharshini.	1,50,000.00	05.09.1995
25.	UTI Rajalakshmi Unit Plan (ii) 15000 units at Rs.10/- per unit Nos.300960070001078 purchased by Tr.R.Venkatakrishnan in the name of her daughter V.Priyadharshini.	1,50,000.00	05.09.1995
26.	Bank balance in Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. T.Nagar, Chennai – 17 name of Tr.R.Venkatakrishnan in Account No.3053 as on 30.04.1996	466.00	30.04.1996
27.	Bank balance in Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. T.Nagar, Chennai – 17 name of Tr.R.Venkatakrishnan in Account No.3051 as on 30.04.1996	89,155.85	30.04.1996
28.	Bank balance in State bank of India T.Nagar, Chennai – 17 name of Tr.V.Manjula in Account No.2552 as on 30.04.1996	10,024.00	30.04.1996
29.	Bank Balance in Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. T.Nagar, Chennai – 17 name of Tr.V.Manjula and Tmt.R.Sakunthala jointly in Account No.3324 as on 30.04.1996 share of Tmt.V.Manjula 38,250.96 2	19,125.45	30.04.1996
30.	Bank Balance in Karur Vysya Bank Ltd T.Nagar, Chennai – 17 name of Tr.V.Manjula in Account No.3055 as on 30.04.1996.	1,301.80	30.04.1996
31.	Investment made in “Sri Ramdoss Builders Pvt Ltd. (100 equity shares at Rs.10/- each).	1,000.00	12.01.1995
32.	Investment made in “Sri Ramdoss Builders Pvt Ltd for the year ending 1995-96 in the name of Tmt.V.Manjula.	25,000.00	1995-96
33.	Investment made in “Sri Ramdoss Builders Pvt. Ltd (100	1,000.00	12.10.1995
	shares at Rs.10/- each) in the name of Tmt.V.Manjula.
34.	Investment made in “Sri Ramdoss Builders Pvt Ltd for the year ending 1995-96 in the name of Tmt.V.Manjula.	1,00,000.00	1995-96
35.	Investment made in Vensam Steel Industries Ltd (10 shares at Rs.100/- each) in the name of Tmt.V.Manjula.	1,000.00	1994-95
36.	Investment made in Vensam Steel Industries Ltd for the year ending 1995-96 in the name of Tmt.V.Manjula.	50,000.00	1994-96
37.	Investment made in SR Associates in the name of Tmt.V.Manjula.	1,00,000.00	1994-95
38.	Funds brought into SR Associates in the name of Tmt.V.Manjula.	19,51,922.00	1995-96
	Total	88,42,783.45
	As conceded by P.P	(-) 2,05,750.00
	Total	86,37,033.45/-

ANNEXURE – III

Statement of Income of the Tr.R.Venkatakrishnan (Accused-1) and   Tmt.V.Manjula (Accused A-2) during the 2^nd    check period from 06.05.1994 to 30.04.1996.

Sl. No.	Particulars of Assets of R.Venkatakrishnan	Value	Date of Acquisition
1.	Net Pay & Allowance and other arrears of Tr.R.Venkatakrishnan from 06.05.1994 to 30.04.1996	1,07,285.00	06.05.1994 to 30.04.1996
2.	Rental advance received by Tr.R.Venkatakrishnan for letting out shop No.8, at Plot No.C-238/B door No.103, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Chennai – 24.	65,000.00	07.05.1995
3.	Rent received by Tr.R.Venkatakrishnan for the shop noted above Rs.2740×12.	32,880.00	07.05.1995 to 30.04.1996
4.	Rent received by Tmt.V.Manjula towards letting out premises No.43, Brindavan Street Extn, West Mambalam, Chennai – 33 to the Director (EIOB Installation Tamil Nadu Circle, No.48, Brindavan Street, Extn, West Mambalam, Chennai – 33.	1,17,000.00	06.05.1994 to 30.04.1996
5.	Rent received by Tmt.V.Manjula for the 1st floor of the building at Plot No.238-B, Door No.103, Dr.Ambedkar	1,38,500.00	For the year 1994-95 to
	Road, Chennai – 24 and shops 7 & 7-A, at ground floor.		1995-96 & April 96
6.	Cash gifts received by Tmt.V.Manjula at her Valaikappu function.	70,042.00	1994-95
7.	Cash gifts received at naming ceremony of child of Tr.R.Venkatakrishnan & Tmt.V.Manjula.	1,10,123.00	21.10.1994
8.	Cash gifts received at birthday of child of Tr.R.Venkatakrishnan & Tmt.V.Manjula.	1,70,426.00	21.10.1995
9.	Income from S.R.Associates.	1,10,000.00	1994-95 to 1995-96
10.	Agricultural Income	27,600.00	1994-95 to 1995-96
11.	To interest in SB A/C 3053 of Tr.R.Venkatakrishnan in Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. T.Nagar Branch.	11.00 9.00	12.09.1994 07.03.1995
12.	To interest in SB A/C 3051 of Tr.R.Venkatakrishnan in Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. T.Nagar Branch.	75.00 68.00 1,196.00 1,892.00	12.09.1994 07.03.1995 25.09.1995 07.03.1996
13.	To interest in SB A/C 2552 of State Bank of India, T.Nagar Branch in the name of Tmt.V.Manjula.	468.00 1,074.00	24.04.1995 24.04.1995
14.	To interest in SB A/C 3055 of Tmt.V.Manjula in Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. T.Nagar Branch.	26.00 25.00 28.00 29.00	12.09.1994 07.03.1995 25.09.1995 07.03.1995
15.	To interest in SB A/C 3324 of Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. T.Nagar Branch jointly in the names of Tmt.V.Manjula and mother of A-1 Tmt.Sakunthala share of Tmt.V.Manjula (Joint Account).	112.50   71.00 106.00 126.50	13.09.1994 09.03.1994 25.09.1995 27.03.1996
16.	Prized amount received from Navanithi Chits Pvt Ltd during 6/95.	75,000.00	20.06.1995
	Total	10,29,173.00

ANNEXURE – IV Statement of Expenditure of the Tr.R.Venkatakrishnan (Accused – 1) and

  Tmt.V.Manjula (A-2) during the 2^nd    check period from 06.05.1994 to 30.04.1996

Sl. No.	Particulars of Assets of R.Venkatakrishnan	Value	Date of Acquisition
1.	Estimated family consumption expenditure of Tr.R.Venkatakrishnan and his family members consisting of himself, his wife A-2, his mother and two children	83,345.35	06.05.1994 & 30.04.1996
2.	House rent paid by Tr.R.Venkatakrishnan during his stay with his family in the ground portion of the house situated at No.2, 16th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 83, at the rate of Rs.2,750/- per month	30,250.00	06.05.1994 to 31.03.1995
3.	Electricity charges paid by Tr.R.Venkatakrishnan while staying in the above house.	10,684.00	-do-
4.	Water charges paid by Tr.R.Venkatakrishnan staying in the above house.	360.00	-do-
5.	Personal drawing and expenditure incurred for daughter’s birthday reception of Tr.R.Venkatakrishnan & Tmt.V.Manjula	35,000.00	1995-96
6.	Municipal Tax paid by A-2 for property at No.42 & 43, Brindavan Street, Extension, Chennai – 33 in the name of Tmt.V.Manjula.	20,000.00	1994-95 and 1995-96
7.	Expenditure incurred by A-1 during naming ceremony of his child	25,000.00	21.10.1995
8.	Contribution to Navanidhi Chit during check period	64,980.00	30.04.1996
	Total	2,69,619.35

63. Regarding assets accumulated during the 2^nd check period, the gold jewels mentioned under item No.9 of Annexure-II, the prosecution case is that, out of 3062 grams of gold jewels found in the house of A1 during the search conducted on 13.02.1996 by the Income Tax Officials, the accused able to account for 1216.600 grams of gold jewels, balance 1845.46 grams of gold jewels were unable to satisfactorily account it. Fixing Rs.447/- per gram, the prosecution has valued the gold jewels in hand as Rs.8,24,893.00. The trial Court, after referring Ex.P.16 which is the Panchanama prepared by Assistant Director of Income Tax during the search conducted in the residence of A-1, declined to take jewels as assets on the ground that, the accused have explained and accounted the jewels seized from his residence and the explanation is found in page No.5, Question No.9. On perusal of Ex.P.16, Question No.9, this Court finds that, when the Income Tax Official questioned A-1 regarding the jewels weighing 3062 grams and 8 silver articles weighing 1 kg 204 grams.  A1 has stated that, part of which belongs to his wife and his mother received at the time of marriage and family function.  At the time of birth and 1^st Birthday and other ceremonies of his daughter, certain items are received and purchased during the last 10 years by his mother and the source had come from family business, salary, agricultural income. For the silver article also, the above explanation holds good. The trial Judge has taken this as an explanation to omit a sum of Rs.8,24,893/- from the assets held at the end of check period. First of all, it is not the case of the accused that, the assets does not belong to him.  He had only explained the source from which he got his assets.

Therefore, this explanation is not a reason to omit the value of the gold jewels from including it at Annexure- II meant for assets held.  From the answer given by A-1, it appears that, these jewels were accumulated by him for the past 10 years, if so, this should have been disclosed by him in the 1^st check period itself. Furthermore, his explanation for the source is as usual, the agricultural income, salary, other income and gifts.  The trial Court had also observed that, the Investigating Officer has not verified the jewels independently except relying upon the Panchanama prepared by Income Tax Authorities the weight and value not been properly assessed.

64. The trial Court has also referred Ex.P.20, which is the reply to Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. A-1 in Ex.P.20, dated 06.02.1997, while explaining about the jewels, he had stated that, around 2000 grams of jewels was seized during the search conducted by Income Tax Department and those jewels belongs to his wife Smt.V.Manjula, mother Sakunthala and himself.  He has given the list of jewels held by them individually and according to the statement around 640 grams of jewels belongs to him; 1222 grams of jewels belongs to his wife and remaining 1200 belongs to his mother. He claims that, he purchased 511 grams of jewels between 31.03.1988,

31.03.1987 and 31.03.1996 and also given the value.  He claims that, he sold

320 grams during 31.03.1992 and he received gift of 449 grams of jewels. Similarly, in respect of his wife, A-1 has stated that, she (A-2) own 1222 grams of jewels which was received on the occasion of her marriage as Sridhana, during Valaikappu, Birthday of his daughter, his wife has not purchased anything for consideration.  Regarding 1208 grams of jewels, A-1 claims that, it belongs to his mother which he purchased or received as gifts.  For easy reference, extract of his explanation found in Ex.P.20 is drawn below:-

Jewellery Reconciliation

Total Jewellery found in the premises    : 3062 grams

This Jewellery belongs to the following:-

Mr.R.Venkatakrishnan	640 grams
Mrs.V.Manjula (wife)	1222 grams
Mrs.R.Sagunthala (Mother)	1200 grams
Total	3062 grams

Purchases made by R.Venkatakrishnan

31.03.1988	110 grams	Valuing	Rs.26,000/-
31.03.1987	171 grams	Valuing`	Rs.30,000/-
31.03.1996	230 grams	Valuing	Rs.1,08,266/-
	511 grams		Rs.1,13,866/-

Sold 320 grams during 31.03.1992 Gifts received 449 grams

Smt.V.Manjula

She is owning 1222 grams of jewellery which was received

on the occasion of her marriage as Sridhan and gift received on the occasion of her marriage Valaikappu Function and Birthday of her children. No purchases made by her.

Smt.R.Sagunthala

She is owing 1208 grams of jewellery which was received by her from her parents and on various occasions as gifts, purchases were made by her.

65. The accused has admitted the recovery of 3062 grams of gold jewels from his house by the Income Tax Department during the search conducted. He has given some explanations for the source and these explanations extracted above would show that, they are make belief statement of A-1, which he had come forward to say in the year 1997. In any case, he being in possession of this assets, for calculation of the value of the assets held by the accused, same has to be taken note and included. The trial Court had gone tangently saying that, fixation of Rs.447/- per gram not correct. All the jewels are stone studded, the value not been assessed by the Competent Assessor and these jewels are received as gifts during marriage, Valaikappu, child birth and Birthday. Conveniently, the trial Court has forgotten the fact that, marriage, Valaikappu, child birth and birthday of the child, all happened during the 1^st check period and the 2^nd check period and earlier.  So, the possession of these assets ought to be accounted and cannot be ignored, accepting the ipse dixit explanation given by the accused persons. The prosecution out of 3062 grams of gold jewels recovered had accepted the explanation given by the accused to an extent of 1216.600 grams, only 1845.40 grams of jewels alone taken as unaccounted and the value is fixed at Rs.447/- per gram.  A Look at the explanation given by A-1, we find that, he claims that, on 31.03.1996, he purchased 230 grams of jewels for Rs.1,08,266/-, if so, the value of 1 gram of jewel on 31.03.1996 comes around Rs.470.72. The

prosecution has fixed at Rs.447. There is no error in fixing the value of gold at Rs.447/- per gram since the accused not able to provide the exact date on which it was acquired by him and for what price and from whom.  Other items Nos.1 to 8, 10 and 11 form part of the 1^st check period and no further scrutiny is required.

66. Apart from these 11 items, which includes the jewels, the accused has made additional investment by purchase of shares and properties which are listed from item No.11 to 20. That apart, Foreign and Indian currencies were seized from his residence during the Income Tax raid and UTI Rajalakshmi Unit Plan purchased by A-1 in the name of her minor daughter found in item Nos.24 and 25.  The bank balance at the end of the check period shown from item Nos.26 to 30. The investments made in “Sri Ramdoss Building (P) Ltd., Vensam Steel Industries and SR Associates by A-2 are found in item Nos.31 to 38.  While the accused A1 and A2 possessed assets valued at Rs.30,33,191/-, at the end of the check period under Annexure-II, the prosecution has shown total value as Rs.88,42,783.45, whereas, in view of the revision regarding the value at item No.5, a sum of Rs.2,05,750.45 has to be reduced.  For all these assets acquired during the 2^nd check period, the trial Court only reason for refusing to take into account is the Income Tax returns filed as Ex.P.22 and the explanations Ex.P.36 and Ex.P.37, since we have discussed enough about the probative value of the Income Tax returns filed belatedly, in view of this Court, no further deliberation is required in this aspects.
67. Regarding item Nos.14 and 15 which are shown as property at the hands of the accused at the end of check period, not taken into account by the trial Court saying that, this was purchased before the check period. It is disheartening to note that, the trial Court knowingly or unknowingly had tried to make a mockery of the trial, he had no understanding of the case. Annexure

– II is for the asset held by the accused persons at the end of the check period, whether it will fall under accumulation of wealth without known source of income are not is entirely different fact which required assessment of evidence. The fact that, item Nos.14 and 15 are properties held by the A-2 at the end of the check period and Annexure-II is about the details of assets held by the accused persons at the end of the check period is not a disputed question. Whether it was purchased during the check period or before check period alone is the question for consideration.  If it is the property purchased and held before the check period under Annexure-V, assets acquired during the check period, the value of the property held before the check period will be excluded. Precisely, the prosecution  under Annexure-V had given Statement – II  as assets that stood to the credit of A-1 and A-2 as on 30.04.1996.  While arriving at the value of the assets acquired by the accused, during the check period, Statement-I which shows the details of the property held at the beginning of the check period and its value is taken into account and deducted from the value of the total assets held in the credit of the accused persons.

68. Regarding item No.20, which is in respect of property at No.210,

G.S.T Road, Chrompet, which was purchased in the name of Manjula on

09.11.1994, the prosecution has valued it as Rs.8,80,000/- + stamp duty Rs.1,05,000/- and registration fees Rs.8,870/-. This fixation of value based on the document registered at SRO Office, Pallavaram, Chrompet, as Doc.No.4913 of 1994 dated 09.11.1994 is in respect of 170 cents purchased by five persons each having undivided share of 34 cents.

69. P.6 is the copy of the sale deed executed by one S.Karpagam and others on 09.11.1994 in favour of A-2. The 1/5^th undivided share in the property morefully described was purchased by A-2 for consideration of Rs.8,80,000/- and the receipt of the sale consideration also been narrated in the recital of the deed. While so, the trial Court ignoring Ex.P.6, had observed that, the prosecution has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence to show, A2 hold 1/5^th undivided share in the above said Chrompet property.
70. Regarding the recovery of Indian and Foreign Currencies total value of Rs.97,980/- + Rs.51,240.81 during the house search of A-1 by the Income Tax Department. The trial Court has observed that, its value cannot be taken as an assets in view of explanation given by the accused immediately after the search proceedings and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Ex.D.1 has specifically stated that, no addition to be made by the Assessing Officer. At the risk of reputation, this Court records that it fails to understand how the trial Court able to make such observations when the Indian and Foreign Currencies been seized by the Income Tax Department and admittedly been in possession of the accused, how it can be ignored from taking it as an asset at the hand of the accused is puzzling. It is not the only entry which is dealt in this passion by the trial Court but almost all the assets, even admitted by the accused persons, deliberately refuse to be take into account by the trial Court and the reason given is absurd.
71. As far as the investments in the private Companies and UTI’s, which form rest of the entries in Annexure-II, this Court finds the accused has not given any explanation and whatever explanation given by the trial Court could not consider being unsupported by any tangible evidence. The explanation given by the accused that, they were not aware who made the investment in the name of her daughter been readily accepted by the trial Court for the reason best known. Since, the judgment been delivered 12 years ago and the opportunity to scrutinise it judicially had come only now, this Court restrain from passing any adverse comment about the trial Judge except to say that it is perverse to the core and absurd on all aspects. Hence, liable to be set aside.
72. Lastly, as far as the disproportionality, this Court finds that, at the beginning of the 2^nd check period, the accused A-1 and A-2 had sum of Rs.30,33,191.50/-. At the end of the check period the assets held by the accused as per prosecution is Rs.88,42,783.45, however, a sum of Rs.2,05,750/- to be reduced in respect of item No.5 as conceded by the prosecution and therefore, Rs.2,05,750/- is reduced. Thus, total value of the assets at the end of the check period is arrived as Rs.86,37,033.45. The income during the check period is Rs.10,29,173.00 as per Annexure-III stated above.  The expenditure during the check period is Rs.2,69,619.35 as per Annexure-IV.

ANNEXURE – V

(Statement – II) Assets that stood to the credit of A-1 and A-2 as on 30.04.1996	Rs.86,37,033.45
(Statement – I) Assets that stood to the credit of A-1 and A-2 as on 06.05.1994	Rs.30,34,052.00
Assets acquired by the A-1 between 06.05.1994 and 30.04.1996	Rs.56,02,981.45

ANNEXURE – VI

Income of A-1 and A-2 (Statement – III)	Rs.10,29,173.00
Expenditure of A-1 and A-2 (Statement – IV)	Rs.2,69,619.35
Likely savings of A-1 and A-2	Rs.7,59,553.65

ANNEXURE – VII

Assets acquired during the check period	Rs.56,02,981.45
Likely saving	Rs.7,59,553.65
Disproportionate Assets	Rs.48,43,427.80

Percentage of D.P. Assets = (Statement – VII/Statement III x 100) =

x 100       470.61%

Rounded off 471%.

73. As a result, these Criminal Appeal Nos.444 of 2023 and 446 of 2023 filed by the Appellant/State are Allowed. The common judgment of acquittal passed by the Special Court in C.C.No.88 of 2011 and C.C.No.89 of 2011, dated 11.01.2012, on the file of the Special Judge for cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai is hereby set aside.  A-1 and A-2 are found guilty of offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 109 I.P.C r/w 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of P.C Act, 1988, for holding assets 237% disproportionate during the 1^st check period from 01.07.1991 to 23.03.1994 and 471% disproportionate during the 2^nd check period from 06.05.1994 to 30.04.1996.
74. Registry is directed to cause notice to Mr.R.Venkatakrishnan and

his wife Tmt.V.Manjula, to be present before this Court on 19.09.2023, to answer the question of sentence.  List the case on 19.09.2023.

13.09.2023

Index           :Yes.

Internet        :Yes.

Speaking order/Non-speaking order

Note: Issue Order copy today bsm

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.

bsm

Copy to:-

1. The Special Judge for cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai.
2. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai.

Pre-Delivery common judgment made in Crl.A.Nos.444 & 446 of 2023

13.09.2023