Disproportionate Assets case

I am facing a disproportionate assets case. Check Period 01.01.2005 to 29.02.2008. My widowed sister-in-law, who is not a dependent member of my family, had invested Rs.600000 in Sept, 2005 (received from her younger brother on disposal of his landed property, as per family arrangement) in Post Office Monthly Income Scheme, in the joint name of herself and her elder brother. As she was not having any locker facility, the related passbooks were kept in my locker, for safety purposes. After a search of my residence on 29.02.2008, CBI has got opened the locker, as part of the search, and taken possession of these passbooks. These investments of Rs,6,00,000 were included in Statement -B : Properties of R.Veeraswamy and his dependant family members at the end of the check period i.e., 29.02.2008. My sister-in-law has income from other sources such as interest income on other investments, rental income etc also during the said Check Period, and those income has also been included in Statement B: Income of R.Veeraswamy and his dependant family member during the Check Period.
The Times of India, dated 05.04.2015 has reported that SC has warned CBI sleuths that assets of family members should be taken as assets of the Government Servant in case the family members have an independent source of income, in Mulayam Singh Yadav, former Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, in a disproportionate assets case.
Query is: My widowed Sister-in-Law (having no issues) is not a dependent member of my family, though we live together in a joint family and she has also got an income of her own, In the circumstances, including her assets at the end of the Check Period, i.e., 29.02.2008 along with the assets at the end of the Check Period i.e., 29.02.2008 of myself and my dependent family member is not proper., Statement - B.
Kindly advise on my conclusion. Also, kindly give references of other SC orders on this point.

Asked 4 years ago in Criminal Law

Religion: Hindu

Ask a question and receive multiple answers in one hour.

Lawyers are available now to answer your questions.

Ask a question

3 Answers

K. Veerasamy Vs. Union of India, 1991 SCC (Crl.) 734 (SC). The Apex Court in this decision has held that after collection of all materials the Investigating Officer must give an opportunity to the accused and call upon him to account for the excess of assets over the known source of income and then decide whether accounting is satisfactory or not.

A.P. Pillai Vs. the State represented by the Inspector of Police,( 2013 (3) MWN (Crl.) 62.)

2. K. Thavasi and another Vs. State by Deputy Superintendent of Police (V & AC), Madurai (2014 (3) MWN (Crl.) 70).

3. DSP, Chennai Vs. K. Jnbasagaran, (2006 (1) SCC 420).

30. In A.P. Pillais case cited 1st supra, madras High court has held that non-compliance of pre requisite condition by the Investigating Officer calling for explanation of accused, is improper and it would go to show that the investigating officer had filed the final report with mala fide intention.

31. In K. Thavasis case cited 2nd supra, madras high court has also held that the non consideration of statements filed before income tax department has caused prejudice and therefore this court has held that the trial court has not taken into consideration of the various statements filed by the accused before the income tax department on the ground that the same were submitted subsequent to the investigation. This court has also held that on a scrutiny of the evidence of PW69, it has come out in evidence that the accused have filed statements long before the registration of the first information report on 31.10.1996 and in fact PW14 has admitted that the accused appeared in the office on 13.12.1995 itself and field the statements as evidenced by Ex. P29 etc.

In DSP, Chennai cited 3rd supra the apex court as held that the accused on his part satisfactorily establishing that the money and assets recovered belong to his wife which she amassed from the business run by her separately. It is also held that in the absence of any evidence that the assets belonged to the accused, he cannot be held liable under PC Act for such assets. This has been decided by the division bench of apex court as early as in the year 2006 itself.