Disproportionate Assets in Husband’s Name and Joint Holdings Raise Abetment Charge: Madras HC Dismisses Wife’s Plea for Discharge [Read Order]

The Madras High Court has dismissed the discharge plea of the petitioner , wife of a Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) officer accused in a disproportionate assets case. The Court held that disputed questions regarding ownership of properties and the petitioner’s role as an abettor must be tested during trial, not at the stage of discharge.

The CBI registered a disproportionate assets case against Dhara Prasad, Assistant Manager (Finance & Accounts) at BEL, alleging that during the check period from 01.04.2017 to 04.02.2020 he acquired assets worth ₹2.02 crore, 381.80% more than known sources of income.

Investigators found properties held jointly with his wife, Harshitha Annapragada, and in her independent name. The charge sheet alleged that she abetted her husband in acquiring, concealing, and holding assets disproportionate to income.

Complete Supreme Court Judgment on GST from 2017 to 2024 with Free E-Book Access, Click here

Harshitha filed a discharge petition before the Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, arguing that she was wrongly implicated. The Trial Court dismissed her plea, prompting the present revision before the High Court.

Counsel for Harshitha contended that, She was not a public servant and merely held properties in her independent name. It was further contended that Both she and her husband were income tax assessees, with returns reflecting higher income than shown in the charge sheet.

It was argued that Her independent earnings from part‑time accounting, tuition, and real estate commissions were ignored. Also Properties were acquired through loans, gifts, and legitimate sources, which the CBI failed to consider. Also She was cited as a witness in a parallel PMLA case, which indicated she was not an abettor.

It was also argued that both petitioner and her husband are Income tax assessees and they had filed income tax returns for the relevant period. Thus income tax particulars are available with the respondent and the returns indicate the income of the petitioner and her husband.

Petitioner placed her reliance on several precedents, P.Nallammal v. State (1999) 6 SCC 559 where it was held that mere holding of assets in a non‑public servant’s name does not establish abetment absent active involvement.

Also Saju v. State of Kerala (2001) 1 SCC 378 where it was held abetment requires proof of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid.

The prosecutor argued that the Properties in Harshitha’s name and joint holdings with her husband were unexplained and prima facie indicated abetment. Also Income tax returns alone cannot absolve her; sources of deposits and payments remained doubtful.

It was also argued that During the check period, he accumulated assets in his name and in the name of his wife to the tune of Rs.2,02,09,500/- which is 381.80% more than their income.

It was further argued hat At discharge stage, the Court need only see if prima facie materials exist, not conduct a detailed enquiry.

Justice M. Nirmal Kumar noted that the petitioner’s husband, a public servant, had accumulated disproportionate assets, some in her name. While she claimed independent income and legitimate sources, no supporting documents were produced before the Trial Court or High Court. The Court held that whether her earnings and tax returns explained the assets was a matter for trial.

The High Court dismissed Harshitha’s revision, affirming the Trial Court’s refusal to discharge her. It clarified that observations were limited to the discharge stage and the trial court must decide the case independently on merits.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates