Chennai: The state government has filed a revision petition in the Madras high court, to set aside an order of a lower court, which discharged former DMK minister M. R. K. Paneerselvam, his wife and son from the Rs 3.01 crore disproportionate wealth case.
Justice P. Devadass before whom the petition filed by the state represented by inspector of police, vigilance and anti-corruption, Cuddalore, came up for hearing, ordered notice, returnable by three weeks, to Paneerselvam, his wife Senthamizhselvi and his son P. Kathiravan.
According to the petitioner, based on the investigation, a case was registered against Paneerselvam, his wife and his son. The prosecution case was that Paneerselvam had amassed wealth to the tune of Rs 3.01 crore in his name and in the names of his wife and son, disproportionate to his known sources of income during the period between April 15, 2006, and March 21, 2011, when he was the health minister.
Paneerselvam, as a public servant, committed the offence of criminal misconduct by acquiring and possessing in his name and in the names of his wife and son, who were his dependents, pecuniary resources and properties disproportionate to their known sources of income for which he cannot satisfactorily account and hence, a charge sheet was filed to the effect that he had committed an offence punishable under section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Senthamizhselvi and Kathiravan abetted and aided Paneerselvam.
The investigating officer examined 59 witnesses and cited 60 witnesses including himself and collected 111 documents. While so, they filed petitions to discharge them from the case and the special judge/chief judicial magistrate, Cuddalore, had on February 3, 2016, allowed their petitions and discharged them from the case. Aggrieved, the present appeal was filed, the petitioner added.
The petitioner contended that mere grave suspicion was enough to frame a charge but in this case more than prima facie material was produced before the court to frame charges against the accused. The lower court failed to appreciate that the prosecution has established its case by providing all material evidences before the court to frame charges against the accused.
The special judge has on an erroneous understanding of law, conducted a mini trial at the stage of dealing with discharge applications, appreciated the evidence on record and discharged the accused without considering the
parameters laid down by the Supreme Court for dealing with discharge applications, the petitioner added.
