VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 499
901
sources
Income received should be from a lawful source
and such receipts ought to have been intimated to
the authorities also.
J. Prem vs. State,
2000 Cri.L.J MAD 619
The petitioners are husband and wife and accused in Special
Case on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Additional District
Judge, Cuddallore. The first accused has been charged for an offence
under sec. 13(2) read with sec. 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and the second accused was charged for
offences under sec. 109 IPC read with sec. 13(2) read with sec. 13(1)(e)
of the said Act. The first accused became a Member of the Legislative
Assembly on 17-6-91 and he became the Minister on 17-5-93.
The High Court held that there is prima facie material to frame
charge against both of them and that there is absolutely no force in
the contention of the petitioners. The first accused contended that
he had acquired lot of income from the taxi as well as cool drinks
shop and the second accused contended that she had acquired
properties out of her own funds as well as the funds given by her
father. The High Court referred to the provisions of sec.13 of the
P.C. Act and the Explanation thereunder and observed that it is clear
that the income received by the accused should be from a lawful
source and such receipts ought to have been intimated to the
authorities concerned also. Admittedly, the petitioners have not filed
any income-tax returns relating to the check period in question
including the income now proposed by them. Under the circumstance,
the only conclusion that can be drawn is that there is a prima facie
material to proceed further against these petitioners and it cannot be
said that the charge is groundless against them. In this view, the
High Court declined to interfere.