Representational image
The appeal and bail petition arose from the conviction of Thachankary, who was sentenced to four years’ rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs 30 lakh in a disproportionate assets case relating to allegations that he had amassed wealth while serving as a senior police officer between Jan 1, 2003, and July 4, 2007.
Kochi : The high court on Thursday expressed serious concern over the inordinate delay in finalising corruption cases, apprehending that the very purpose of the PC Act would be defeated, and remarked that the situation was “pathetic”.
The court further said this was evident from the data of Kerala high court itself and not from anywhere else. A bench of Justice A Badharudeen made the oral remarks while reserving its order on a petition filed by former DGP Tomin J Thachankary seeking bail by suspending his conviction and four-year sentence in a disproportionate assets case. During the hearing, the court orally observed: “Once a person is found to be involved in a PC Act offence, after a while, when he is getting bail, he will be reintroduced into the service. He may continue the same process and sometimes repeat the offences; sometimes he may not. So, we will have to ensure that the PC Act is strict. The provisions must be construed so strictly that the public’s confidence is ensured to its optimal position. No corrupt person would go free once he committed the same. But that is not what is happening…. … What is happening is that getting a conviction or even a trial itself is becoming a difficult task. The trial will be stalled in multiple ways. Ultimately, somebody who has faced all these situations, been subjected to trial, conviction and sentence, will get bail easily from the appellate court. Thereafter, he continues for years without the appeal even being heard. In the meantime, many of the accused may die. And the very purpose of the law could be defeated. “Are we the protectors of justice? That should be ensured,” the court remarked. The public prosecutor opposed Thachankary’s petition seeking bail and filed a written objection in this regard. Meanwhile, senior counsel appearing for Thachankary argued that the conviction was based on a gross misappreciation of the evidence on record and merely on erroneous calculations made by investigating officers. However, the court noted that, in the case of certain transactions, including the amount claimed to have been given by the appellant’s mother, the appellant had relied only on oral evidence. After the parties concluded their submissions on the bail plea, the court reserved its order.