Exceptional case: State opposes ex-DGP Tomin Thachankery's appeal in Kerala High Court against DA case conviction

The Kerala government on Tuesday strongly opposed an appeal filed by former Director General of Police (DGP) Tomin Thachankary challenging his conviction and 4-year jail sentence in a disproportionate assets case is decided [Tomin J Thachakary v. State of Kerala]..Justice A Badharudeen has directed the State to file its counter by September 24.The State today expressed that it wants to file written objections to Thachankary's plea to suspend his jail sentence until his appeal is decided. Thachankary's counsel opposed this request. "This is the first time the prosecution is asking to file written objections in a case with less than 10 years' sentence," he said. The Court too acknowledged that there was no absolute right vested with the State to file such written objections when the imprisonment sentence imposed is less than 10 years. "This sentence is under 10 years. There is no absolute right to file objection. You may have a right but it is not absolute," the Court observed, addressing the State's counsel. The State, however, maintained that this was a case where the convict's plea had to be strongly opposed. "This case cannot be treated as an ordinary case. He was a Director General of Police. His position, the seriousness of the allegations and the fact that this is a crime against society must be considered," said the State's counsel. "All Prevention of Corruption Act cases are against society," the Court pointed out. The facts of this case make it (written objections) necessary," the State maintained. "So this is a message to all DGPs, Ministers, Chief Ministers etc. Question is if there are exceptional circumstances," the Court replied. The Court proceeded to allow the State time till September 24 to file its counter. "State to file counter if any by day after tomorrow," the Court said. .The case against Thachankary stems from a complaint filed by Bobby Kuruvila, who claimed to be an anti-corruption crusader. He alleged that Thachankary had acquired houses, flats and other properties during his service disproportionate to his known income.A vigilance investigation launched subsequently found that Thachankary had acquired assets worth over ₹64 lakh between 2003 and 2007, which were disproportionate to his known income.Thachankary was convicted and sentenced to four years' imprisonment by Kottayam Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance) KV Rajaneesh last week. The trial court found that there was disproportionate income amounting to around ₹30 lakh, which came up to over 50% of his known income at the time.While Thachankary had requested for a lighter sentence citing medical ailments, the trial court opined that his position did not warrant leniency especially considering the magnitude of his abuse of power.The trial court also imposed a fine of ₹30.84 lakhs on Thachankary, the exact amount of disproportionate assets it found..Thachankary subsequently moved the present appeal before the Kerala High Court. He simultaneously filed an application to suspend his sentence during the pendency of the appeal. In his appeal, Thachankary contended that the verdict of the trial court is illegal and perverse. He submitted that the trial court took cognizance of the case on the basis of a sanction order of the government which was issued solely on the basis of a supplementary investigation report. According to Thachankary, there was an earlier sanction order which was withdrawn on the request of the investigating agency. Thachankary claimed that this withdrawn sanction order indicated that the amount of disproportionate assets was around ₹20 lakhs whereas the amount in the new sanction order was ₹64 lakhs. "No fresh materials were produced before the sanctioning authority for issuance of [the new sanction order] and there was total non application mind. It was issued on the mere asking of the investigating officer based on his supplementary final report," the appeal stated.Thachankary also questioned the methods adopted by the trial court to calculate his income from various sources. He also argued that the trial court had not considered his wife's income. Thachankary also pointed out that the State government had ordered further investigation into the matter but the same was set aside by the High Court in 2025. Thachankary alleged that though the High Court had allowed the use of any evidence that had already been collected during the course of further investigation, the prosectuion suppressed all such evidence during trial. .Thachankary is being represented before the High Court by advocates S Rajeev, MS Aneer, Sarath KP, Anilkumar CR, KS Kiran Krishnan, Dipa V, Akash Cherian Thomas, TP Araving, Azad Sunil, Akshara S, Nivedita Rajeev, and Ebee Antony. .[Read Order].[Live Coverage]