STATE Vs. P ESWARAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Appeal is filed by the State represented by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Erode Division, Erode, against the judgement dated 23.07.2004 passed in CC.No.7/1999 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Cum Special Judge, Erode, acquitting the Respondent/A1 under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) and the Respondents/A2, A4 and A5 under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 109 of IPC.

(2.) THE brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of this Criminal Appeal are that the 1st Respondent/A1 P.Eswaramoorthy belonged to Erode District and a resident of Ammapettai in Bhavani Taluk and the 2nd Respondent/A2 is his wife and the 3rd accused is his father; that the 3rd accused died pending trial and so the charge as against him stood abated; that the 3rd Respondent/A4 is the sister of A1 and the 4th Respondent/A5 is the brother-in-law of A1 and husband of A4; that according to Prosecution, A2 to A5 were depending on A1, who was the Member of Legislative Assembly of Dharapuram from the year 1991 to 16.5.1993 and thereafter, from 17.5.1993 to May 1996, he was the Minister of Khadi and Village Industries Department; that prior to 1991, A1 has neither possessed any ancestral properties nor any other income by any other sources; that from 16.6.1991, A1 possessed properties worth about Rs.55,300/- including the poramboke land in Ammapettai A-Village and the tiled house in name of A3 in Ammapettai B-Village; that A1, after getting the post of MLA and Minister as stated above, there were properties such as agricultural lands, MIG and HIG Houses, Cars and other investments and other immovable properties in the name of A1 to A5 and the value of the said properties was Rs.32,72,626/- as on 9.5.1996; that from 16.06.1991 to 09.05.1996, the income of the A1 was Rs.2,07,456/- and after deducting the expenses of Rs.1,25,169/-, the savings would have been Rs.82,287/- and thus, from 16.6.1991 to 9.5.1996, A1 to A5 acquired properties to the tune of Rs.31,35,039/- illegally; that though sufficient opportunity was given to them to account the same, they failed to do so and A1 allowed A2 to A5 to acquire the said properties in their name and hence, charge sheet has been filed against the Respondent//A1 for the offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) and the Respondents/A2 to A5 for the offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 109 of IPC.

(3.) THE 3rd accused died pending trial and so, the charge as against him stood abated. THE court below, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and looking into the materials available on record, found the Respondents/A1, A2, A4 and A5 not guilty and accordingly acquitted them as referred to above, which is challenged in this Criminal Appeal.