Madras High Court
R.Murali vs State Represented By on 3 July, 2026
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
CRL A No. 37 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 19.06.2026
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 03.07.2026
CORAM
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL A No. 37 of 2019
1. R.Murali
S/o.Ramachandran,
No.80, K.C.Swamy Street,
Virubakshipuram,
Vellore-632 002.
2. M.Valarmathi
W/o.R.Murali,
No.80, K.C.Swamy Street,
Virubakshipuram,
Vellore-632 002.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
State Represented By
The Inspector Of Police,
Vigilance And Anti Corruption,
Vellore.
(Cr.No.10/2003).
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, praying to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed
upon them by the Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate in Special Case
No.02 of 2008 dated 07.01.2019 and allow the appeal.
For Appellant(s): Mr.K.Nirmal Kumar
For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar,
Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu
(Crl. Side)
__________
Page1 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No. 37 of 2019
Judgment
This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellants to set aside the
conviction and sentence imposed upon them by the Special Judge cum Chief
Judicial Magistrate in Special Case No.02 of 2008 dated 07.01.2019 and allow
the appeal.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the first accused and the second
accused are husband and wife. The first accused, while serving as a public
servant during the period between 01.01.1990 and 31.01.2001, acquired assets
in his name as well as in the name of the second accused, which were
disproportionate to his known sources of income, to the tune of Rs.53,30,682/-.
The second accused abetted the first accused in the commission of the offence.
Based on the information received, the respondent registered an FIR in Crime
No.10 of 2003, for the offences under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
3.After the Trial Court took cognizance of the case, the prosecution
examined PW1 to PW21 and marked Exs.P1 to P37. On the side of the
accused, no witness was examined and no document was marked. Upon
appreciation of the evidence on record, the Trial Court found the first accused
guilty of the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the
__________
Page2 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No. 37 of 2019
Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/-, in default to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The second accused was
convicted of the offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, and
was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a
fine of Rs.2,500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three
months. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the
present appeal has been preferred.
4.The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there were two
accused in this case. The first accused, who was the husband of the second
accused, died during the pendency of the proceedings. The second accused was
not a housewife but was engaged in the real estate business. Although she was
not a public servant, she had an independent source of income to purchase the
properties. She was also an agent of the Life Insurance Corporation of India
and an income-tax assessee. Therefore, the second appellant had sufficient
independent income to acquire the immovable properties in her name.
5.The learned counsel further submitted that the Deputy Superintendent
of Police conducted the preliminary enquiry, whereas the final report was filed
by the Inspector of Police. The Investigating Officer who conducted the
__________
Page3 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No. 37 of 2019
investigation was not examined by the prosecution. Further, there was a clear
violation of Sections 17 and 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. That apart,
the prosecution failed to examine any independent witnesses to prove the
charges.
6.It was further submitted that, after the registration of the FIR, the
second appellant furnished a detailed explanation along with documents
showing her source of income for purchasing the immovable properties.
However, the respondent failed to consider the documents produced by the
second appellant before filing the final report. The allegations were primarily
against the first accused. Since, the first accused had died and the proceedings
against him had abated, no useful purpose would be served by punishing the
second accused.
7.The learned counsel further contended that the prosecution failed to
prove the charge under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The offence of
abetment requires positive and cogent evidence to establish that the accused
intentionally aided or instigated the commission of the offence. When a
non-public servant is charged with the offence of abetment under Section 109 of
the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is required to prove every ingredient of
the offence, including the specific overtact attributed to such accused.
Abetment cannot be presumed merely on the basis of the relationship between
__________
Page4 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No. 37 of 2019
the parties.
8.Even according to the prosecution, PW10 deposed that the second
accused worked as an LIC agent from 30.06.1992 to 01.07.1998 and earned a
commission of Rs.46,965/-. Further, PW15 deposed that the second accused
independently obtained a loan of Rs.10 lakhs for the construction of a marriage
hall. PW12, the Tahsildar, who assessed the agricultural income, categorically
admitted in his cross-examination that he had not served as Tahsildar during the
check period. He deposed only on the basis of the report submitted by the
Village Administrative Officer. He neither personally inspected the lands
owned by the second accused, nor did he know what crops had been cultivated
on those lands. Therefore, the evidence of PW12 regarding the agricultural
income cannot be relied upon for convicting the second accused. The Valuer
was examined as PW11. According to him, no prior notice had been issued to
the owner of the property before conducting the valuation. Further, the
valuation report did not bear the signature of the owner acknowledging the
inspection or valuation. Therefore, the valuation report cannot form the basis
for conviction. The prosecution also suppressed the preliminary enquiry report
prepared by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The prosecution failed to
produce the said report, and the officer, who conducted the preliminary enquiry
was not examined. Therefore, the FIR itself cannot be sustained, as it is not
based on the preliminary enquiry records.
__________
Page5 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No. 37 of 2019
9.The learned counsel further submitted that the sanctioning authority
mechanically accorded sanction to prosecute the first accused, without properly
considering the facts and circumstances of the case. He also submitted that the
presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not
applicable to an offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act.
10.With regard to the charge of abetment under Section 109 of the Indian
Penal Code, the learned counsel submitted that the prosecution must prove
every ingredient of the offence beyond reasonable doubt, and such burden
cannot be shifted to the accused in the absence of a statutory provision. The
burden of proving the criminal charge always rests upon the prosecution. The
prosecution also failed to examine any witness to establish the alleged
conspiracy between the accused. To sustain a conviction for abetment, the
prosecution must establish a meeting of minds between the abettor and the
principal offender. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the
accused are liable to be set aside, and the appeal deserves to be allowed.
11.On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
appearing for the respondent submitted that the FIR was registered in the year
2003 and, therefore, there was no violation of the provisions of Sections 17 and
19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The respondent was competent to
__________
Page6 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No. 37 of 2019
register the FIR and proceed with the investigation. Although the second
accused claimed to be a real estate broker and an LIC agent, she failed to
produce any evidence to substantiate the same. In fact, the second accused had
taken a specific defence before the Trial Court that she had no connection with
the first accused and that she had obtained a divorce from him. However, she
failed to produce any evidence to substantiate the said defence.
12.In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW21
and marked Ex.P1 to P37. The evidence on record revealed that, during the
check period, the accused had amassed wealth to the tune of Rs.53,30,682/-,
whereas their known sources of income were only to the extent of
Rs.7,00,000/-. The second accused had shown her monthly income as only
Rs.3,000/- during the relevant period. Thus, the accused had amassed assets
disproportionate to their known sources of income to the extent of 123.99%.
Therefore, the Trial Court rightly convicted the accused, and the judgment does
not warrant any interference by this Court.
13.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
14.From the submissions made on either side, it is seen that there were
two accused, who were husband and wife. During the pendency of the appeal,
__________
Page7 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No. 37 of 2019
the first accused died and, consequently, the appeal, insofar as it relates to him,
stood abated. Accordingly, the appeal as against the first accused is dismissed
as abated.
15.The first accused initially entered Government service as a Junior
Assistant in the Government High School, Edayamsathu, in the Education
Department. Subsequently, he was promoted as Assistant in the office of the
Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Konavattam, Vellore District. On
receiving reliable information that the first accused and his wife, the second
accused, had acquired assets and were in possession and enjoyment of
pecuniary resources disproportionate to their known sources of income, a
preliminary enquiry was conducted. The enquiry disclosed that both the
accused were in possession of disproportionate assets in their names during the
check period between 01.01.1990 and 31.01.2001. The relevant portion of the
FIR is extracted hereunder:
“(i) A house site in Survey No.233/8 and 233/@A
of Konavattam Village purchases by first accused in his
name, spending Rs.15,750/- on 8.2.96 as per document
No.576/96 of District Register, Vellore and a house
constructed thereon during the Check Period at a cost of
about Rs.1,00,000/-. (ii) 1.41 acres of land in survey
No.200/6, 6B of Poigai Village purchases by the first
accused in his name, spending Rs.31,360/- on 10.4.96 as
per document No.1881/96 of District Register, Vellore.
__________
Page8 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No. 37 of 2019
(iii) A house site in survey No.41/2 of Virupatchipuram
Village purchased in the name of his wife Tmt.Valarmathi
(A2) by spending Rs.59,578/- on 16.2.92 as per document
No.1725/92 and constructed a house thereon at a cost of
about Rs.5,50,000/- during the check period. (iv) A house
property in survey No.140/3 of Palavansathu Village
purchased in the name of his wife Tmt.Valarmathi (A2) by
spending Rs.1,60,480/- on 26.3.99 as per document
No.1861/99 of District Register Vellore. (v) A house site
in survey No.42/10 of Sathumathurai Village purchases in
the name of his wife Tmt.Valarmathi (A2) by spending
Rs.1,05,601/- on 18.6.99 as per document No.642/99 of
Sub-Register, Kaniyambadi and a marriage hall
constructed thereon during the check period, at a cost of
about Rs.37,50,000/-. (vi) A house site in survey
No.183/2B of Thuthipattu Village purchased in the name
of his wife Tmt.Valarmathi (A2) by spending Rs.17,495/-
on 17.9.95 as per document No.627/95 of Sub-Register,
Kaniyambadi. (vii) A house site in survey No.24/4 of
Pennathur village purchased in the name of his wife
Tmt.Valarmathi (A2) by spending Rs.13,066/- on 7.8.91
as per document No.391/91 of Sub-Register, Kaniyambai.
(viii) 2.24 acres of land in survey No.469/1, 4, 6, 7, 8 and
467/1, of Adukkamparai village purchased in the name of
his wife Tmt.Valarmathi, (A2) by spending Rs.1,34,370/-
on 3.5.93 as per document No.222/93 of District Register
Vellore. (ix) 0.92 acres of land in survey No.447/2B of
Adukkamparai Village purchased in the name of his wife
Tmt.Valarmathi (A2) by spending Rs.72,894/- on 3.8.96
__________
Page9 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No. 37 of 2019
as per document No.475/96 of District Register Vellore.
(x) 0.76 acres of land in survey No.444/4 of
Adukkamparai village purchased in the name of his wife
Tmt. Valarmathi (A2) by spending Rs.38,104/- on
24.10.96 as per document No.654/96 of Sub-Register,
Kaniyambadi. (xi) 1.76 acres of land in survey No.443/1,
3, 4, 5 449/2 and 444/1B, 19, 8 of Adukkamparai Village
purchased in the name of his wife Tmt.Valarmathi (A2) by
spending Rs.1,39,311/- on 1.10.99 as per document
No.171/2000 of Sub-Register Kaniyambadi. (xii) A
bank balance of Rs.432/- in the name of Tmt.Valarmathi
(A2) in the account No.8252 of Indian Bank,
Virupachipuram Branch. (xiii) House hold articles like
AC machine, Refrigerator, Fans, Tape recorder,
Television set, Cell Phone and Furniture etc., at a cost of
about Rs.1,10,000/-. (xiv) Cash on hand Rs.50,000/-.”
16.Further, during the check period, the accused had no known source of
income other than the salary of the first accused. The second accused was not
employed elsewhere and was only a housewife. They failed to establish any
independent source of income for acquiring assets disproportionate to their
known sources of income and also failed to satisfactorily account for the
acquisition of such assets. PW1, the Sanctioning Authority, accorded sanction
to prosecute the first accused after verifying the statements recorded under
Section 161(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the FIR registered in
Crime No.10 of 2003 on the file of the respondent. During the investigation,
__________
Page10 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No. 37 of 2019
the accused were called upon to submit their explanation. Since the explanation
offered by them was found to be unsatisfactory, the respondent proceeded with
the investigation and filed the final report.
17.The second accused specifically contended that she was not residing
with the first accused as she had obtained a divorce from him. However, she
failed to produce any evidence in support of the said plea. Therefore, the Trial
Court rightly concluded that the first and second accused had lived together
until the death of the first accused.
18.Although, the second accused claimed that she was a real estate broker
and an LIC agent, she did not produce any evidence to substantiate the same.
On the other hand, the evidence disclosed that the first accused had acquired
assets in the name of the second accused, without obtaining prior permission
from the competent authority. Consequently, disciplinary proceedings had also
been initiated against the first accused by his employer.
19.It is also seen that, upon receipt of the information, the Deputy
Superintendent of Police conducted the preliminary enquiry. Owing to his
transfer, the enquiry was thereafter continued by the succeeding Investigating
Officer in the rank of Inspector of Police. PW20 categorically deposed that the
Deputy Superintendent of Police had conducted the preliminary enquiry and,
__________
Page11 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No. 37 of 2019
upon his transfer, the records were handed over to the succeeding Investigating
Officer, who thereafter registered the FIR.
20.The prosecution examined the Sub-Registrar as PW2. Pursuant to the
requisition made by the Investigating Officer, PW2 produced the sale deeds
relating to 21 properties, which were marked as Exs.P5 to P17. Some of the
properties had been purchased directly by the second accused, while others had
been purchased through her power agent. The vendors of the properties were
examined as PW7 and PW14, and they categorically deposed regarding the sale
of the properties in favour of the second accused.
21.As per Ex.P21, during the check period between 01.01.1990 and
31.01.2001, the first accused had agricultural income to the tune of
Rs.1,18,575/-. Although the learned counsel for the appellants vehemently
contended that the second accused was an income-tax assessee, a perusal of
Ex.P31 only shows that she had filed income-tax returns. The said returns do
not disclose sufficient income to justify the purchase of the properties. The
second accused also failed to establish the source of funds utilised for
purchasing those properties.
22.As per Ex.P36, during the period from 1990 to 1991, the first accused
was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.1,100/-. During the period from 1994 to
__________
Page12 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No. 37 of 2019
1997, he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.2,000/-. In the year 1998, he was
paid Rs.2,700/- per month, and in the year 1999, his monthly salary was
Rs.3,300/-. Therefore, the assets acquired by the accused were disproportionate
to their known sources of income to the extent of 123.99%.
23.A perusal of Ex.P31 further reveals that the second accused had filed
income tax returns for the assessment years 1992–1993 to 2000–2001. For the
assessment year 1992–1993, she declared an income of Rs.25,000/-. For the
assessment year 1993–1994, she declared an income of Rs.30,900/-, and for the
assessment year 1995–1996, she declared an income of Rs.45,000/-. Even then,
the properties acquired by the accused were wholly disproportionate to their
known sources of income.
24.Thus, the first accused, being a public servant, and the second accused,
being his wife residing with him, had amassed assets disproportionate to their
known sources of income. The prosecution discharged its initial burden,
whereupon the burden shifted to the accused to satisfactorily account for the
assets. The accused failed to discharge the said burden. The evidence also
establishes that they were jointly in possession and enjoyment of the properties.
Therefore, the Trial Court rightly convicted the accused, and this Court finds no
illegality or infirmity in the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the
Trial Court.
__________
Page13 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No. 37 of 2019
25.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the second
accused is presently suffering from Stage IV cancer. After considering the said
submission, this Court is inclined to modify the sentence alone. Since the
sentence is being reduced, the Judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court
is confirmed.
26.In view of the above, the judgment of conviction dated 07.01.2019
passed by the learned Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anti
Corruption Division, Vellore, in Spl.S.C. No.02 of 2019 is confirmed.
However, the sentence imposed by the trial Court is modified from four years
rigorous imprisonment to two years rigorous imprisonment. Accordingly, this
Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
-07-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
AH
To
1.The Inspector Of Police,
Vigilance And Anti Corruption,
Vellore.
2.The learned Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Anti Corruption Division,
Vellore.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
__________
Page14 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No. 37 of 2019
25.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the second
accused is presently suffering from Stage IV cancer. Even after considering the
said submission, this Court is not inclined to interfere with or modify the
sentence imposed by the Trial Court.
26.In view of the above, the judgment of conviction and sentence dated
07.01.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Anti Corruption Division, Vellore, in Spl.S.C. No.02 of 2019 is confirmed.
Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
03-07-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
AH
To
1.The Inspector Of Police,
Vigilance And Anti Corruption,
Vellore.
2.The learned Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Anti Corruption Division,
Vellore.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court,
Madras.
__________
Page15 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No. 37 of 2019
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN J.
AH
PRE-DELIVERY JUDGMENT IN
CRL A No. 37 of 2019
03-07-2026
__________
Page16 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
