logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 4939 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : Crl. RC. No. 1164 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
Parties : M. Brabah Versus State by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption, Ariyalur
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: L. Baskaran, S. Anbalagan, Advocates. For the Respondent: R. Ganesh Kumar, Counsel for Government of Tamilnadu (Crl.Side).
Date of Judgment : 10-07-2026
Head Note :-
BNSS - Section 438 r/w Section 442 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS (under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C, to call for records pertaining to Crl.MP.No.1474 of 2025 in Spl.C.C.No.1 of 2025 pending on the file of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Perambalur and set aside the impugned order dated 13.03.2026 made in Crl.MP.No.1474 of 2025 in Spl.CC.No.1 of 2025 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Perambalur.)

1. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the order passed in Crl.M.P. No.1474 of 2025 in Spl.C.C. No.1 of 2025, whereby the trial Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner seeking discharge from all the charges.

2. The respondent registered FIR No.RC.48/2023/TANGEDCO/PBR and, upon completion of the investigation, filed a final report. The trial Court took cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. The prosecution alleges that the first accused, while working as an Assistant Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO, Operation and Maintenance, South, Perambalur District, accumulated assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, both in his own name and in the names of his family members, during the check period from 26.07.2018 to 31.12.2019. Pending framing of charges, the petitioner filed a petition seeking discharge from the case. The said petition was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, even according to the prosecution, no case is made out against the petitioner. Though the petitioner has been arrayed as the second accused, being the wife of the first accused, there are no materials to show that she abetted the commission of the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the respondent filed the final report without properly considering the sources from which the deposits were made in the petitioner's name.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner possessed 720 grams of gold jewellery received as gifts from her parents at the time of her marriage and also on the occasions of her children's birthdays. In Form III (Statement of Movable Property) submitted by the first accused as early as 03.08.2016, it was declared that the second accused was in possession of 720 grams of gold jewellery acquired from her parents.

6. However, the prosecution has stated that the petitioner was found to be in physical possession of only 118 grams of gold jewellery and failed to take into account the value of the remaining jewellery at the end of the check period. It is also contended that the prosecution failed to follow the procedure prescribed under the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Manual while calculating the assets acquired during the check period.

7. According to the learned counsel, Rule 70 of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Manual prescribes that the check period should neither be too long nor too short and that a period of four to seven years would ordinarily be appropriate. Therefore, it is contended that no offence is made out against the petitioner and that the trial Court mechanically dismissed the discharge petition without properly considering the above aspects.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent. Perused the materials available on record.

9. A perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent and the submissions made by both sides reveals that the petitioner has been arrayed as the second accused. Initially, based on source information, the respondent registered the FIR against the first accused for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

10. Upon completion of the investigation, the respondent filed the final report against the first accused for the offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for the period from 01.12.2013 to 25.07.2018 and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for the period from 26.07.2018 to 13.12.2019. As against the second and third accused, the respondent filed the final report for the offences punishable under Section 109 IPC read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for the period from 01.12.2013 to 25.07.2018 and under Section 109 IPC read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for the period from 26.07.2018 to 31.12.2019.

11. There are specific allegations against the accused that the first accused committed criminal misconduct as a public servant during the check period by acquiring assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, thereby attracting the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

12. The prosecution further alleges that, during the check period, the second accused abetted the commission of the said offence by intentionally assisting the first accused in acquiring and holding properties in her own name and in the names of their minor children on his behalf. Therefore, according to the prosecution, the petitioner is liable to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 109 IPC. It is also alleged that the petitioner had no independent source of income during the relevant period.

13. Though the petitioner has taken a specific stand that the gold jewellery weighing 720 grams had been gifted to her by her parents at the time of her marriage and on the occasions of her children's birthdays, the materials collected during the investigation reveal that the explanation offered by the petitioner was not accepted, as the jewellery bills produced by her were found to be fabricated.

14. The investigation further reveals that, during the check period, the accused amassed assets disproportionate to their known sources of income. The first accused acquired assets in the names of his father and other family members to the value of Rs.7,75,000/- as on 01.12.2013. By the end of the check period, i.e., as on 31.12.2019, assets worth Rs.1,58,71,000/- had been acquired in the names of his mother and other family members.

15. The income earned by the accused and their family members during the check period was assessed at Rs.82,22,000/-, whereas the expenditure incurred during the said period was assessed at Rs.29,61,691/-. Thus, the investigation prima facie reveals that the accused were in possession of pecuniary resources and properties valued at Rs.98,35,691/- which were disproportionate to their known sources of income.

16. A careful perusal of the records further reveals that sufficient oral and documentary materials are available against the petitioner to frame charges. At the stage of considering a discharge petition, the Court is only required to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists. The materials placed by the prosecution are sufficient to prima facie show that the petitioner may have committed the offences punishable under Section 109 IPC read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the discharge petition. This Court finds no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the order passed by the trial Court warranting interference in exercise of the Revisional jurisdiction.

17. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
 
  CDJLawJournal