Kerala HC reserves order on Thachankary’s plea for suspension of sentence in disproportionate assets case

You don’t have any Active Subscription.

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

Tomin J. Thachankary | Photo Credit: VIBHU H

The Kerala High Court has reserved its verdict on former Director General of Police Tomin J. Thachankary’s plea for suspension of sentence in the disproportionate assets case.

Justice A. Badharudeen had earlier allowed the State to file its objection to the application seeking suspension of sentence in the appeal filed by Thachankary against the sentence by the Vigilance Court, Kottayam. The trial court had found Thachankary guilty of amassing disproportionate wealth during his tenure as Inspector General from 2003 to 2007.

The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau had filed a chargesheet stating that Thachankary had amassed assets to the tune of ₹64 lakh in addition to his declared sources of income.

Senior Government Pleader Roy Thomas (Muvattupuzha) argued that the prosecution had established a disproportion of 52.33% in Thachankary’s income extensively before the trial court and that Thachankary had purchased 18 properties in a span of 4 years out of the 36 years of his service. He claimed that the Vigilance Court’s order was legally sustainable and that in a case involving such a high-ranking official, a suspension of sentence order should not be taken lightly. He further contended that Thachankary had not established an apparent error in the judgment passed by the Vigilance Court and that the accused was given ample opportunity to provide evidence before the trial court.

In his appeal, Thachankary had contended that there were irregularities in the sanction order issued to prosecute him. He argued that the prosecution had miscalculated his rental income, property income, payments made by his relatives, and properties acquired by his wife. Additionally, he contended that the trial court had not considered his wife’s income from her business and agricultural properties. He also pointed out that the trial court had not assessed his tax returns properly.

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.