People accused of amassing wealth disproportionate to known sources of their income cannot be heard to claim that the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) was not entitled to inquire into the matter just because the Income Tax Department had accepted their annual returns during the check period, the Madras High Court Bench here has held.
Justice M. Sathyanarayanan passed the order while dismissing a discharge petition filed by M. Ravi Kumar, husband of A. Tamilarasi who was the Minister for Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare during the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam regime between 2006 and 2011. Now, the couple were facing a DVAC case on charges of accumulating Rs.34.36 lakh through corrupt practices. According to Additional Public Prosecutor C. Ramesh, Ms. Tamilarasi hailed from a poor family based at Paramakudi in Ramanathapuram district. She was in possession of pecuniary resources and properties worth Rs.4.09 lakh before assuming charge as a Minister in May 2006 but ended up being in possession of properties worth Rs.50.88 lakh by the end of her tenure.
Claiming that her husband neither had a permanent job nor a proper source of income, the DVAC contended that he was completely dependant on his wife when she was the Minister. Further stating that the accused had earned Rs.31.51 lakh and incurred expenditure to the tune of Rs.19.91 lakh during the check period, the prosecution claimed that the couple could not account satisfactorily for Rs.34.36 lakh. Denying all charges levelled against him, Mr. Kumar questioned the authority of the DVAC to probe into the issue when the Income Tax Department had accepted annual returns filed by him. However, the judge rejected the contention on the ground that Income Tax returns alone could not be taken as a conclusive proof of acquisition of properties through lawful means. He said that in a recent decision, the Supreme Court had said: “A property in the name of an income tax assessee itself cannot be a ground to hold that it actually belongs to him/her. In case this proposition is accepted, it will lead to disastrous consequences. It will give opportunity to corrupt public servants to amass properties in the names of known persons, pay income tax on their behalf and escape from prosecution.”
