The Appeal
This Criminal Appeal is filed against the Judgment of the XIII Additional Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, dated 06/06/2014 in C.C. No.38 of 2010, thereby finding the appellant/sole accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
Summary of the case of the prosecution
The prosecution case arose during investigation of a larger case relating to customs officials, where during a surprise check it was found that goods were released without proper adjudication and illegal gratification was involved. While that case was pending, the prosecution received information that the accused had amassed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. A separate case was registered alleging that during the check period the accused had acquired assets far exceeding his lawful income. After investigation, a final report was filed alleging possession of disproportionate assets, and the case was taken on file by the Trial Court.
Summary
In appeal, the main dispute was not with regard to the assets at the beginning of the check period, but with regard to certain items included as assets at the end of the check period. The accused contended that some immovable properties standing in the names of his mother and relatives ought to have been excluded, as they were purchased from their independent sources of income, and that if those items were excluded, no disproportionate assets would remain. The accused also questioned inclusion of one property transaction which, according to him, had not been completed, and the inclusion of gold jewels.
The Court examined the evidence relating to each disputed item. With respect to the Tambaram property, the Court noted that though the property stood in the names of relatives, the evidence showed that the accused was instrumental in the purchase, was present during registration, and that the property ultimately came back to his son through settlement deeds. The explanations put forward regarding family arrangements were found to be unsupported by any document and contradicted by evidence, leading the Court to conclude that the purchasers were only name lenders and that the property rightly belonged to the accused and was correctly included as his asset.
With regard to the Mahabalipuram plots, the Court considered the evidence of the vendor who clearly deposed that the accused paid the consideration in cash, including for the plot which was not finally registered. The seized money was found to have been deposited in connection with the main case. The Court found no credible explanation to disbelieve the vendor’s evidence and held that these properties were also rightly treated as assets of the accused. As far as the jewels were concerned, the Court agreed with the Trial Court’s approach in limiting the value taken into account.
After reworking the calculations, the Court found that one plot value required deduction, but even after such deduction, the accused was still in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. Thus, the core issue before the Court, namely whether the accused had satisfactorily explained the assets held in excess of income, was answered against him, and the finding of guilt was confirmed.
Paragraphs from the judgments
Doubt raised with respect of the money: 4.7 As a matter of fact, doubt was raised with respect to the money that was seized from PW-16 during the course of arguments in this appeal. Accordingly this court called for particulars and it is seen that the amount is deposited in the main case that is being faced by the accused along with others in C.C. No.1 of 2013, on the file of the XIII Additional Court for CBI Cases and amount was originally deposited to credit of RC 60A/2009 and is lying term deposit vide TDR No. TE/MTDN 0571856 dated 17/12/2009 in FD A/c. No.867591972 at Indian Bank, Nungambakkam Branch, Chennai. There was no necessity for PW- 16 to part away with such huge money unless paid by the accused. The only cross-examination is that, under pressure from CBI authorities, the money was paid, and the full money would not have been paid. They could not elicit any favourable answer. Thus, there is absolutely no explanation regarding item No. 5. It only demonstrates that the money is not hard-earned and was to be stealthily invested. Documentation was not even comfortable.
Accused paid the money: 4.9 However, there is no evidence suggesting payment by PW-18 or PW-28. On the contrary, it is the specific deposition of PW-16, vendor that it is only the accused who paid the money. In order to doubt the same, no credible evidence is let in. As a matter of fact, it can be seen that yet another property was also purchased in the name of PW-18 and immediately a power of attorney is obtained in the name of the son of the accused. If the transactions are taken cumulatively, the design of the accused to take the properties in the name of the relatives and thereafter, changing over the same in the name of his son is evident. In the instant case, before he could make documentation to item No.5 and further transactions in respect of item No.4, the CBI intervened. Thus, there is no iota of doubt whatsoever that these items 4 & 5 also belonged to the accused and have rightly been included by the trial court.
4.10 As far as the arguments relating to jewels are concerned, the trial court itself had considered the same and had taken into account only Rs. 67,250/-, which this Court also agrees.
14% assests are disproportionate/uneven to the known sources of income and confirmation of the trial court judgment: 4.11 In view of the above findings, there is no change in Statement A i.e., Assets at the beginning of the check period, as found by the Trial Court, which is Rs.28,02,343/-. As far as Statement B i.e. Assets at the end of the check period is concerned, it was found by the trial Court to be as Rs.1,11,32,376/-, In respect of one plot situated at Mahabalipuram, a sum of Rs. 11,54,540/- has to be deducted in Statement B. After deducting the value, Statement B is as follows Rs.1,11,32,376/- – Rs.11,54,540/- = Rs.99,77.836/-. Statement C i.e. the income during the check period is Rs.93,69,796/-. Statement D ie. the expenditure during the check period as found by the trial court is Rs.35,49,733/-. Therefore the disproportionate assets (B-A) –(C-D) is Rs.13,55,430/-. Thus, still the accused has got 14.4% of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income and therefore the finding of trial Court Regarding the guilt has to be confirmed.
Conclusion
While partly allowing the appeal, the Court held that the conviction under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was correct and confirmed, but considering the age of the accused and the circumstances, modified the sentence by reducing the imprisonment to one-year simple imprisonment while confirming the fine and granting time to surrender.
Party: B. Pugazhenthi Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police ACB, CBI, Chennai -[Criminal Appeal No.323 of 2014] - Date of Judgment: 08.10.2025.
