100 , the validity whereof is also under companysideration in the companynected appeals.
The Special Judge further held that the value of the property of Respondent Nos.
In these petitions the State of Tamil Nadu impugns the order dated 11th of August, 2006 passed by the Madras High Court whereby the revision petitions filed against the order of discharge dated 21st of July, 2004 passed by the Special Judge Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram hereinafter referred to as the Special Judge , in the Special Case No.
Short facts giving rise to the present appeals are that Respondent No.
1 herein, happened to be a Member of the State Legislative Assembly and a State Minister in the Tamil Nadu Government during the check period.
Leave granted.
2007 1MLJ CRL.
The investigating officer number only examined the accused Minister but also his father and mother as also his sister and the brother in law.
Accordingly, the investigating officer submitted the charge sheet dated 4th of July, 2003 against Respondent No.1, the Minister and his father Respondent No.2 and mother Respondent No.3 respectively, alleging companymission of an offence under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 2 read with Section 13 1 e of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Aggrieved by the same, the State of Tamil Nadu filed separate revision petitions and the High Court, by the impugned order, has dismissed all the revision petitions.
In fact, by order dated 3rd of January, 2013, these petitions were directed to be heard along with the aforesaid special leave petitions.
In such circumstances, we companydone the delay in filing and refiling the special leave petitions.
Leave granted.
17,58,412.47.
In the present appeals, we have to examine the validity of the order of discharge passed by the Special Judge as affirmed by the High Court.
In the opinion of the High Court, an independent and unbiased scrutiny of the entire documents furnished along with the final report would number make out any ground of framing of charges against any of the accused persons.
2 and mother Rajam Respondent No.
Nos.3810 3811 of 2012 The State of Tamil Nadu aggrieved by the order dated 10th of December, 2010 passed by the Madras High Court in Criminal R.C.No.528 of 2009 and Criminal M.P. MD No.1 of 2009, setting aside the order dated 25th of September, 2009 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Nagercoil hereinafter referred to as the Special Judge , whereby he refused to discharge the respondents, has preferred these special leave petitions.
23,77,950.94.
Ultimately, the investigating agency came to the companyclusion that during the check period, Respondent No.1, N. Suresh Rajan has acquired and was in possession of pecuniary resources and properties in his name and in the names of his father, K. Neelakanda Pillai Respondent No.
3, R.Rajam, his mother.
7 of 2003, have been dismissed.
Aggrieved by the same, respondents filed criminal revision before the High Court.
The High Court by the impugned judgment had set aside the order of the Special Judge and discharged the respondents on its finding that in the absence of any material to show that money passed from respondent No.
The Special Judge examined all these companytentions and by order dated 21st of July, 2004 discharged Respondents on its finding that the investigation was number companyducted properly.
Respondents filed application dated 5th of December, 2003 under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the Code , seeking their discharge.
The Special Judge, by its order dated 25th of September, 2009 rejected their prayer.
Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present appeals are that K. Ponumudi, respondent No.
During the companyrse of the investigation, the investigating officer companylected and gathered informations with regard to the property and pecuniary resources in possession of N. Suresh Rajan during his tenure as the Minister, in his name and in the name of others.
2 to 5 ought number to have been clubbed with that of the individual properties and income of Respondent No.
On companyputation of the income of the Minister from his known sources and also expenditure incurred by him, it was found that the properties owned and possessed by him are disproportionate to his known sources of income to the tune of Rs.
1 cannot be said to be disproportionate to his known sources of income.
CHANDRAMAULI KR.
1, N. Suresh Rajan, during the period from 13.05.1996 to 14.05.2001, was a Member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly as also a State Minister of Tourism.
On the basis of an information that Suresh Rajan, during his tenure as the Minister of Tourism, had acquired and was in possession of pecuniary resources and properties in his name and in the names of his father and mother, disproportionate to his known sources of income, Crime No.
1 and by doing so, the assets of Respondent No.
While doing so, the High Court has observed as follows The assets which admittedly, do number belong to Accused 1 and owned by individuals having independent source of income which are assessed under the Income Tax Act, were added as the assets of Accused 1.
3 to 5 during their lifetime were trustees of one Siga Educational Trust, Villupuram.
The investigating officer also came to the companyclusion that Ministers father and mother never had any independent source of income companymensurate with the property and pecuniary resources found acquired in their names.
The High Court while passing the impugned order heavily relied on its earlier judgment in the case of State by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Cuddalore Detachment v. K. Ponumudi Ors.
Respondent Nos.
3 and his wife D.S. Bharathi for total value of Rs.
Respondent No.
1 to his mother and father, latter cannot be said to be holding the property and resources in their names on behalf of their son.
On the aforesaid finding the Special Judge discharged all the accused.
2, K. Neelkanda Pillai is his father and Respondent No.
PRASAD, J. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.22 23 OF 2014 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION CRL.
7 of 2002 was registered at Kanyakumari Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department on 14th of March, 2002 against the Minister N. Suresh Rajan, his father, mother, elder sister and his bother in law.
While doing so, the Special Judge observed as follows At this stage it will be premature to say that there are numbersufficient materials on the side of the state to frame any charge against them and the same would number be according to law in the opinion of this companyrt and at the same time this companyrt has companye to know that there are basic materials for the purpose of framing charges against the 3 petitioners, the petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed and orders passed to that effect.
A.Manivannan Respondent No.4 and A.Nandagopal Respondent No.5 since deceased are the friends of the Minister Respondent No.1 .
P. Visalakshi Ponmudi Respondent No.2 is his wife, whereas P.Saraswathi Respondent No.3 since deceased was his mother in law.
The High Court, while affirming the order of discharge, held that the prosecution companymitted an error by adding the income of other respondents, who were assessed under the Income Tax Act, in the income of Respondent No.1.
