B.Pugazhenthi Vs the Inspector of Police — Corruption | Madras HC (2025)

B.Pugazhenthi Vs the Inspector of Police — Corruption | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Conviction under s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) PC Act, 1988 and the Rs.20,000/- fine confirmed; sentence of imprisonment modified to one year Simple Imprisonment; period of imprisonment already undergone, if any, set off; twelve weeks time granted to surrender before the Trial Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether items 3, 4 and 5 of Statement B (Plot No.139, Door No.6, Shivashanmugam Road, West Tambaram; and Plots Nos.10 and 11, S.No.50/3A & 3B2, Mahabalipuram), counted as the accused's assets at the end of the check period, were truly purchased by him, or were bought by PW-18 Saradambal and PW-19 Thiyagarajan from their own income such that their exclusion would leave no disproportionate assets. +2 more

Court's answer

The defence's claimed family arrangement (that PW-19 and wife executed settlement deeds Exs.P.44 & 45 in favour of the accused's son on the understanding that the accused's brother Gowthaman would get the Vairachettipalayam properties) is false: no such arrangement is in writing, no reciprocal document was executed, revenue records including chitta were unchanged, and Ex.P44 contains a knowingly false recital; the version of the defence is nothing but false.

Ratio / Principle

All four purchasers of the Tambaram plot (item 3) were only name lenders, which is why they returned the property to the son of the accused; PW-19 and his wife made solemn false statements in a title deed and cannot be believed. The asset is therefore rightly taken into account in Statement-B.

Key takeaways

Taking the transactions cumulatively, the design of the accused to take properties in the names of relatives and thereafter change them over into the name of his son is evident; despite claims of agricultural income by PW-18 and contribution by PW-28 (both treated as hostile), there is no evidence suggesting they paid, while vendor PW-16 specifically deposed that only the accused paid the money.ratio¶88
Regarding item No.5 (Mahabalipuram Plot No.11, consideration Rs.18,00,000/- paid in cash by the accused through PW-16 and surrendered to CBI), there is absolutely no explanation; it demonstrates the money was not hard-earned and was stealthily invested, with uncomfortable documentation.ratio¶83

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (D. Bharatha Chakravarthy J.; neutral citation 2025:MHC:2333; reserved 22.07.2025, pronounced 08.10.2025) partly allowed Criminal Appeal No.323 of 2014 against the 06.06.2014 judgment of the XIII Additional Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai in C.C.No.38 of 2010 convicting the appellant under s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (check-period disproportionate-assets case, R.C. No.16/2010) and sentencing him to two years R.I. plus Rs.20,000/- fine. The contest was confined to items 3-5 of Statement B: a West Tambaram plot sold through four sale deeds in the names of PW-18/PW-19 and spouses, and two adjacent Mahabalipuram plots (Nos.10 and 11) in the mother's name. The Court held the pleaded family arrangement (Exs.P.44 & 45) false, the four purchasers mere name lenders who settled the property on the accused's son, accepted vendor PW-16's uncontested testimony that the accused paid the cash (Rs.11,54,000/- for item 4; Rs.18,00,000/- for item 5, later surrendered to CBI and lying in TDR), and found a benami pattern of buying in relatives' names followed by settlement on the son. Only Rs.11,54,540/- was deducted from Statement B, reducing disproportionate assets from the trial court's Rs.25,09,970/- to Rs.13,55,430/- (14.4%); jewels were confined to Rs.67,250/-. Conviction and fine confirmed; sentence moderated to one year Simple Imprisonment; set-off allowed; twelve weeks granted to surrender.