C.Punniyakotti v. The State rep by

Madras HC23 Jun 2025CRL RC/820/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; Crl.R.C.No.820 of 2025; discharge petition dismissed; disproportionate assets; final report; rebuttal of presumption; no mini-trial at discharge stage; Tata Sumo car income; V&AC CCU-III Alandur; Cr.No.3 of 2017; Spl.S.C.No.13 of 2022; Sections 397/401 CrPC; revision dismissed; liberty to raise defence before trial Court.

What did the court decide?

None beyond keeping open the liberty of the accused to raise all the grounds before the trial Court; connected Crl.M.P.No.11404 of 2025 closed ¶28-30

C.Punniyakotti Vs The State rep by — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Crl.R.C.No.820 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 23.06.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

Crl.R.C.No.820 of 2025

¶7

and

¶8

Crl.M.P.No. 11404 of 2025

C.Punniyakotti

... Petitioner

Vs.

The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, V & AC, CCU-III, Alandur, Chennai. Cr.No.3 of 2017 ... Respondent

¶13

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.3528 of 2023 in Spl.S.C.No.13 of 2022 on the file of learned Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu, set aside the order of dismissal of discharge petition passed therein on 23.07.2024.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Dhanasekaran for Mr.A.Balaji

¶15

For Respondent : Mr.S.Udhayakumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶16

O RDER

¶17

1/4

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

Crl.R.C.No.820 of 2025

¶20

The revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Special Judge / Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu, in Criminal M.P. No. 3528 of 2023 in Special S.C. No. 13 of 2022. By the said order, the application for discharge filed by the petitioner/accused was dismissed by the trial Court.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by pointing to the

¶23

initial assets during the check period and the assets as on the final date of the check period, and the income and expenditure, would submit that the Investigating Officer had not taken into account the income derived from the Tata Sumo car and several other items.

¶24

Even the other grounds that are raised in the criminal revision also relate to the merits of the defence. It is now well settled that when a final report has been filed claiming assets disproportionate to the known source of income, it is for the accused to rebut the presumption and place it before the trial Court as to the sources of the income. At the stage of discharge, this Court cannot conduct a mini-trial or a roving enquiry into the various aspects/income and source.

¶25

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

Crl.R.C.No.820 of 2025

¶28