'PC Act Conviction Difficult, But Convicts Easily Released Pending Appeal': Kerala High Court Reserves Verdict In Ex-DGP Thachankary's Plea
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (September 24) reserved its verdict in the sentence suspension plea preferred by former Director General of Police Tomin J. Thachankary in the disproportionate assets case.
Justice A. Badharudeen today heard detailed arguments by Senior Advocate B. Raman Pillai, who appeared for Thachankary. The Court also heard the public prosecutor, who opposed the sentence suspension plea.
The senior counsel submitted that in all cases of Prevention of Corruption Act where sentence is below 10 years, the convict's sentence gets suspended and he is granted bail. The prosecution, however, opposed the sentence suspension plea and pointed out that the Court has discretion even in cases where the sentence granted is below 10 years. Hearing the submissions, the Court orally remarked:
"Sentence suspension is also not automatic. That is also subject to the discretion of this Court on a case-to-case basis. What is happening is getting conviction in a trial is itself a difficult task. Trial will be stalled in multiple ways. Ultimately, somebody, who faced all these situations, subjected to trial, on conviction and sentence, he will get easily released by the appellate court and thereafter, he continues for years without even hearing the appeal for years. In the meantime, many of the accused may die and the purpose of the Act itself would be defeated. I'm saying this based on the data of the High Court and not from anywhere. This is a very very pathetic situation. Whether we are the protectors of justice, that should be ensured."
Justice Badharudeen also orally observed that in PC Act cases, there should be strict construction of provisions to ensure that the corrupt officials do not go scot-free, affecting public confidence:
"But what is actually happening? Once a person is found to be included in a PC Act offence, then also, after a while, when he is getting bail, he will be re-introduced into the service, he may continue the same process, and sometimes repeated offences. Sometimes, he may not. So, we will have to ensure that PC Act is so strict, the provisions must be construed so strictly so that the public and its confidence to be ensured to its optimized position to see that no corrupt person would go free of hand once he has committed the same. But that is not what is happening. Happening in the reverse. That is why the system also, in a way, not fully able to restrain these activities."
The senior advocate argued that the trial court rendered a wrong finding and that one of the major amounts to the tune of around ₹45 lakhs was actually accounted for, rendering the conviction itself as incorrect. The Court, however, orally said:
"The judge opined that some amount you are claiming as money received from mother, etc. is based on only oral evidence. So oral evidence, how can we act upon, unless the same is accounted? Some of the claims is based on oral evidence, that may not be considered in disproportionate assets cases."
On Tuesday, the State had sought time to file a written counter to oppose the sentence suspension plea filed by Thachankary, terming it as an exceptional circumstance even though the term of imprisonment was less than 10 years. Finding merit in the request, the Court had granted 2 days' time and posted the case today for consideration.
The Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Kottayam had convicted Thachankary under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 30.84 lakhs.
The Special Judge had found that after giving the benefit of every material discrepancy established through evidence, what remains is still 52.33 % of his known income.
The appeal is moved by Advocates B. Raman Pillai (Sr.), S. Rajeev, M. S. Aneer, Sarath K. P., Anilkumar C.R., K.S. Kiran Krishnan, Dipa V., Akash Cherian Thomas, T.P. Aravind, Azad Sunil, Akshara S., Niveditha Rajeev and Ebee Antony.
Case No: Crl.A 1239/2026
Case Title: Tomin J. Thachankary v. State of Kerala