(Prayer: This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed to

(i) review and recall the judgment dated 08.10.2025 in Crl.A.No.323 of 2014;

(ii) to set aside the conviction under Section 13 (2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act

(iii) in the alternative hold that the proven disproportionate asset being 8.7%, which is well below 20%, which is marginal and acquit the petitioner and pass such further orders.)

1. This criminal miscellaneous petition is listed under the caption ‘for maintainability’.

2. The Crl.A.No.323 of 2014 was filed against the judgement of the learned XIII Additional Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai made in CC No.38 of 2010. By the said judgment, the petitioner / appellant / accused was convicted for an offence under Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment.

3. After hearing the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor, this Court re-appreciated the evidence in the above Crl.A.No.323 of 2014 and by the judgement delivered on 08.10.2025, the final figures with reference to Statement A, B, C & D were mentioned in paragraph 4.11 and the disproportionate assets after calculation was arrived at Rs.13,55,430/- and the disproportion still at 14.4% more than 10%, the conviction was confirmed. However, the sentence of imprisonment was modified as one-year simple imprisonment. After delivery of the said judgment dated 08.10.2025, this application is filed.

4. Heard Mr.K.N.Nataraaj, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the review petitioner.

5. Firstly, the learned Counsel would submit that there is a patent arithmetic error while calculating and arriving at the percentage of disproportionate assets. If an appropriate calculation is done, even by taking the findings in respect of the property that is mentioned as Item No.3, still the disproportionate assets will go less than 10% and the petitioner/appellant/accused be entitled to acquittal. The learned Counsel in this regard, he would rely on the deposition of D.W.7, an official from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. From his evidence, it can be seen that the said property that was dealt with in the judgement as Item No.3 was leased out to Pollution Control Board and the Pollution Control Board was paying the lease rent. Once the Court concludes that the property belongs to the petitioner / appellant / accused, then the rental income received from that property during the relevant period, in all totalling a sum of Rs.3,52,000/- should be added to the income i.e., in Statement ‘C’ during the check period. Similarly, the maintenance in respect of the properties can be up to 30% of the income derived from the property and a sum of Rs.1,18,250/- had to be added in the statement of expenditure. This has not been taken into account by this Court and if the calculation is again made by taking into account of the above, this will have the effect of acquitting the accused. The learned Counsel in support of his submissions would rely upon the judgment in Lily Thomas, Etc Vs. Union of India and others (AIR 2000 SC 1650). The learned Counsel would also rely upon the judgement in Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and Ors ((2013) 8 SCC 320).

6. Per contra, Mr.N.Baskaran, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent relying upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Raghunath Sharma & Ors., Vs. State of Haryana & Anr (2025 INSC 723) would submit that in view of the bar contained under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the judgments that are relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioner / accused which arise in other writ proceedings / civil proceedings cannot be relied upon in the criminal case. If only no opportunity of hearing is given and if there is abuse of process of law, which would affect the jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the matter in exceptional cases, the judgement can be recalled. There is no power for the Criminal Court to review. The learned Special Public Prosecutor would further submit that the claims made by the petitioner / appellant / accused are also not correct and it requires further factual examination as the lease deed now produced before this Court, and it is not a marked document.

7. I have considered the rivals submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.

8. At the outset, the two points that are argued that the rental income from Item No.3 of the property was omitted to be taken into account in the relevant statement and similarly, the expenditure is omitted to be taken into account in the expenditure statement are considered. After a careful consideration thereof, it cannot even be termed as a mathematical error but what is argued is an error on the part of this Court to consider the same and include in the appropriate statement. Such kind of errors cannot be rectified by a Criminal Court in view of the bar that is contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure and the only exceptions being recalling of the judgment in case of violation of ad alteram partem or abuse of process of law. In this regard, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has rightly placed on record the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Raghunath Sharma & Ors., Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., cited supra and paragraph no.9.3.4 deals with the point in issue.

9. Accordingly, in this case, I do not find the circumstances where this Court being the Criminal Court dealt with the criminal appeal can entertain any grounds for correction or to alter the decision that is arrived. In view thereof, keeping into open for the petitioner/ accused the liberty to raise these grounds before the appropriate forum, the objections raised by the Registry is upheld. Similarly, the other argument that is made is that in certain cases even up to 17% the Courts have granted the benefit of doubt to the accused and let all the accused without punishing, the law that is laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is that up to 10%, the benefit has to be given. Therefore, if the Courts have exercised their discretion and conferred the benefit, that again is not an error of jurisdiction or an error relating to audi alteram partem to be considered in the present application. The very application filed with the name ‘review’ is expressly barred as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and accordingly, I sustain the objections raised by the Registry and with the liberty kept open to the petitioner / accused to raise all these grounds before the appropriate forum, this Crl. MP. SR. No. 89909 of 2025 stands rejected.