Case: D.S.P., Chennai Vs. K. Inbasagaran

2. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that theMr. K. Inbasagaran was a senior I.A.S. Officer of the Government of Tamil Nadu who stood charged for offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as an "Act") and was found guilty, convicted and sentenced by the learned Special Judge (XIth Additional Judge, City Civil Court) at Madras to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months.3. Aggrieved against this Order, the accused preferred an appeal before the Madras High Court at Chennai and the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court acquitted the accused of the aforesaid charges. Hence, the present appeal filed by the State of Tamil Nadu through the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Directorate of Vigilance and

Court's reasoning:
It is true that when there is joint possession between the wife and husband, or father and son and if some of the members of the family are involved in amassing illegal wealth, then unless there is categorical evidence to believe, that this can be read in the hands of the husband or as the case may be, it cannot be fastened on the husband or head of family. It is true that the prosecution in the present case has tried its best to lead the evidence to show that all these moneys belonged to the accused but when the wife has fully owned the entire money and the other wealth earned by her by not showing in thereturn and she has accepted the whole responsibilities, in that case, it is very difficult to hold the accused guilty of the charge. It is very difficult to segregate that how much of wealth belonged to the husband and how much belonged to the wife. The prosecution has not been able to lead evidence to establish that some of the money could be held in the hands of the accused. In case of joint possession it is very difficult when one of the persons accepted the entire responsibility. The wife of the accused has not been prosecuted and it is only the husband who has been charged being the public servant. In view of the explanation given by the husband and when it has been substantiated by the evidence of the wife, the other witnesses who have been produced on behalf of the accused coupled with the fact that the entire money has been treated in the hands of the wife and she has owned it and she has been assessed by theDepartment, it will not be proper to hold the accused guilty under the prevention of Corruption Act as his explanation appears to be plausible and justifiable. The burden is on the accused to offer plausible explanation and in the present case, he has satisfactorily explained that the whole money which has been recovered from his house does not belong to him and it belonged to his wife.17. Therefore, he has satisfactorily accounted for the recovery of the unaccounted money. Since the crucial question in this case was of the possession and the premises in question was jointly shared by the wife and the husband and the wife having accepted the entire recovery at her hand, it will not be proper to hold husband guilty. Therefore, in these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the High Court appears to be justified and there are no compelling circumstances to reverse the order of acquittal.