Disproportionate assets’ case: Kerala HC suspends sentence of former DGP Tomin J. Thachankary

The High Court’s order pauses the punishment, not necessarily the conviction. Thachankary was convicted by the Vigilance Court, Kottayam, in a disproportionate-assets case. Justice A. Badharudeen allowed his plea to suspend the sentence on October 15, 2026. The order matters because it changes the immediate effect of the trial court’s four-year imprisonment term.

A suspended sentence normally means the convicted person need not begin serving the imposed imprisonment while the appeal is being considered, subject to any court conditions. Here, Thachankary also filed an appeal challenging the verdict. The article does not state whether he was released or list any conditions. The fine imposed by the trial court was ₹30.84 lakh.

The appeal will now remain important. Suspension does not itself decide whether the conviction was correct. The High Court will consider his arguments, including alleged irregularities in the sanction order and disputed calculations involving income, relatives’ payments, and his wife’s properties. The sentence could ultimately remain, change, or be overturned through the appeal process.

Under India’s Prevention of Corruption Act, a disproportionate-assets case concerns a public servant possessing wealth that cannot be satisfactorily explained through known sources of income. The core question is whether the person accumulated assets far beyond legitimate earnings during the relevant period. Such cases matter because they test whether public office was linked to unexplained private wealth.

In this case, the VACB chargesheet alleged that Thachankary amassed assets worth ₹64 lakh beyond his declared sources of income. The prosecution calculated a 52.33% disproportion in his income. It also pointed to his purchase of 18 properties during four years, from 2003 to 2007, when he served as Inspector General. Those figures formed part of the prosecution’s case.

The trial court convicted him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Thachankary appealed and disputed the calculations. He challenged the treatment of rental and property income, payments made by relatives, and properties acquired by his wife. The High Court has suspended his sentence while that appeal proceeds.

The prosecution alleged that Thachankary possessed assets worth ₹64 lakh beyond his declared sources of income. In a disproportionate-assets case, that figure represents wealth the prosecution says could not be matched with the income officially disclosed by the public official. It is therefore more than a simple total of all his property or money.

The allegation appeared in the chargesheet filed by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau. The prosecution also said there was a 52.33% disproportion in his income. It connected the allegation with the purchase of 18 properties over four years. Those purchases occurred during his tenure as Inspector General from 2003 to 2007.

The ₹64 lakh figure remains an allegation that was contested in the appeal. Thachankary argued that the prosecution miscalculated rental income, property income, payments from relatives, and properties acquired by his wife. The trial court nevertheless found him guilty and imposed imprisonment and a fine. The High Court has suspended the sentence while considering his appeal.

The Vigilance Court, Kottayam, found Thachankary guilty of amassing disproportionate wealth. It sentenced him to four years’ rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹30.84 lakh. The conviction was under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The High Court later suspended this sentence after allowing his plea.

The alleged accumulation period was 2003 to 2007. Thachankary served as Inspector General during those years. The prosecution said he purchased 18 properties within that four-year span. It also alleged that his assets exceeded his declared sources of income by ₹64 lakh and calculated a 52.33% disproportion.

These dates and figures define the case’s central timeline. The trial court treated the alleged wealth accumulated during that period as sufficient for conviction. Thachankary’s appeal contests that conclusion. He says the prosecution miscalculated rental income, property income, payments made by relatives, and properties acquired by his wife. The High Court’s sentence suspension leaves the appeal as the next major legal stage.

Suspending the sentence changes what happens immediately after the trial-court conviction. Thachankary’s four-year rigorous imprisonment is paused while the High Court considers his appeal. This does not, by itself, cancel the conviction or decide that he is innocent. The article reports the suspension but does not state whether the court ordered his release or imposed conditions.

The appeal gives Thachankary a chance to challenge the verdict. He has argued that the sanction order authorising prosecution was irregular. He also says the prosecution miscalculated rental income, property income, payments made by relatives, and properties acquired by his wife. Those arguments directly target the legal and financial foundations of the trial court’s decision.

The next outcome depends on the appeal. The High Court may uphold the conviction, alter it, or overturn it after considering the record and arguments. If the conviction and sentence remain, the suspended punishment could become enforceable, subject to further legal remedies. The article does not provide a hearing date or predict the final result.

The prosecution focused on the 18 properties and the 52.33% disproportion because both figures were meant to show a significant gap between Thachankary’s assets and his declared income. In a disproportionate-assets case, the scale and timing of acquisitions can help prosecutors argue that wealth was not supported by known earnings.

The prosecution said Thachankary bought 18 properties in four years. Those purchases occurred from 2003 to 2007, during his tenure as Inspector General. The VACB chargesheet separately alleged ₹64 lakh in assets beyond his declared sources of income. The 52.33% figure expressed the alleged income disproportion calculated by the prosecution.

These figures supported the trial court’s finding that he had amassed disproportionate wealth. They were not accepted without challenge. In his appeal, Thachankary argued that the prosecution miscalculated rental income, property income, payments by relatives, and properties acquired by his wife. The High Court has suspended his sentence while assessing the appeal, so the dispute remains unresolved.

A sanction order is an approval issued by the competent authority before prosecution of a public official can proceed in circumstances covered by the law. It acts as a procedural safeguard. The purpose is to ensure that a public servant is not prosecuted without the required official consideration. Its validity can therefore affect whether the case was properly initiated.

Thachankary argued in his appeal that there were irregularities in the sanction order issued to prosecute him. If a court finds that a required sanction was invalid or improperly issued, the prosecution may face a serious legal problem. The exact irregularities alleged are not described in the article. The article also does not identify the authority that issued the order.

This issue is now part of his challenge to the trial-court verdict. The trial court convicted him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and imposed four years’ rigorous imprisonment plus a ₹30.84 lakh fine. The High Court suspended the sentence while considering the appeal. It has not yet reported a decision on the sanction argument.