Retired DGP Tomin J Thachankary was convicted in a disproportionate assets case due to undeclared properties, a large gift to his wife, and un explained foreign trips.

Retired DGP Tomin J Thachankary was convicted in a disproportionate assets case due to undeclared properties, a large gift to his wife, and un explained foreign trips.

Retired DGP Tomin J Thachankary was convicted in a disproportionate assets case due to undeclared properties, a large gift to his wife, and un explained foreign trips.

Kottayam: Evidence relating to around 18 properties acquired in the name of retired DGP Tomin J Thachankary, a ₹52 lakh gift given to his wife and records of his foreign trips were among key points relied on by the prosecution in securing his conviction in the disproportionate assets case, Vigilance Public Prosecutor KK Sreekanth told Onmanorama.

“Thachankary had acquired around 18 properties in Thammanam in his name, without disclosing proper sources for them. No clear sources were disclosed for those assets,” Sreekanth said.

ADVERTISEMENT

He added that the prosecution also found that Thachankary had given a gift worth ₹52 lakh to his wife, but could not establish a source for the money.
“There were also records relating to his foreign trips, for which no clear source of funds was found. These were some of the major points that helped in securing the conviction,” Sreekanth said.

Thachankary was on Thursday found guilty by the Kottayam Vigilance Court in the long-standing disproportionate assets case and sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment. The court also imposed a fine of ₹30.84 lakh.

The case relates to the accumulation of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income between January 1, 2003 and July 7, 2007. According to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), Thachankary had amassed assets worth ₹64 lakh in excess of his known sources of income. The probe found that his assets were 135% higher than his known sources of income, and the prosecution alleged that he failed to provide a satisfactory explanation or proof for the additional income.

'No grounds for leniency'
Thachankary sought leniency in sentencing, citing his health problems and saying that he had undergone a bypass surgery.

ADVERTISEMENT

The prosecution, however, argued that Thachankary was a senior police officer who was entrusted with protecting the lives and property of the public, and that the accumulation of disproportionate assets by such an officer was a serious offence.

“We argued that he should be given the maximum sentence. That is also what the court has stated in its judgment. Even though he is an IPS officer, the court has held that a person who was in service and had commitments towards the public is not entitled to any leniency,” Sreekanth said.

The maximum punishment for the offence is seven years. The court sentenced Thachankary to four years of rigorous imprisonment.

96 witnesses, 271 documents
Sreekanth said the prosecution had presented extensive evidence during the trial.

ADVERTISEMENT

“We produced 96 witnesses and 271 documents before the court. We were able to present all of that properly and satisfactorily,” he said.

The defence had argued that the assets of Thachankary's wife were not properly considered and that some money in his possession had not been taken into account. Sreekanth said the defence had failed to provide precise evidence or proper calculations to establish the source of the assets attributed to his wife. The prosecution had opposed the calculations presented by the defence, arguing that they included income for which tax had not been paid.

'A challenging investigation'
The investigation was particularly challenging because of Thachankary's seniority in the police force, Sreekanth said.

“He was a DIG when the investigation was conducted. Later, he became an ADGP, and by then the charges had been filed,” he said.

Sreekanth said investigating a senior police officer posed considerable difficulties for the officers handling the case.

The VACB filed the chargesheet in 2013. The case was initially heard by the Thrissur Vigilance Court before being transferred to the Muvattupuzha Vigilance Court and later to the Kottayam Vigilance Court. The Kerala High Court had intervened to expedite the trial.

Thachankary had challenged the proceedings before the Kerala High Court and the Supreme Court, seeking a reinvestigation into the allegations. Both courts dismissed his pleas. Thachankary is likely to appeal the verdict before the Kerala High Court. As of now, he will be sent to the Thiruvananthapuram Central Jail.