Menu

Keralam ex-DGP Tomin Thachankary sentenced to 4 years’ RI in assets case

In addition to the prison term, the court also imposed a fine of ₹30.84 lakh on the former IPS officer of the 1987 batch from the Kerala cadre.

Published Sep 17, 2026 | 11:52 AMUpdated Sep 17, 2026 | 3:45 PM

Former DGP Tomin J Thachankary argued that several assets came to him through family inheritance and gifts.
Make Us Your Preferred Source on Google

Synopsis: According to the Vigilance case, Tomin J. Thachankary accumulated assets and incurred expenditure of about ₹64.70 lakh during the period under investigation without satisfactorily accounting for the corresponding income. The investigation found that his assets exceeded his known income by 135.80 per cent. The case was registered following a complaint by Bobby Kuruvila, alleging that Thachankary had acquired houses, flats and properties disproportionate to his known sources of income.

A Vigilance Court in Keralam’s Kottayam district sentenced former Director General of Police (DGP) Tomin J. Thachankary to four years of rigorous imprisonment on Thursday, 17 September.

In addition to the prison term, the court also imposed a fine of ₹30.84 lakh on the former IPS officer of the 1987 batch from the Kerala cadre. The sentence was in a disproportionate assets case dating back to his tenure in government service.

Public Prosecutor KK Sreekanths said Thachankary’s offence was serious. “Further steps will be decided in consultation with the Vigilance Director,” he said.

Thachankary will be shifted to Thiruvananthapuram Central Jail on Thursday itself. He can file an appeal in the Kerala High Court within 30 days.

Earlier in the day, Vigilance Court Judge K.V. Rajaneesh held Thachankary guilty of possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income between 1 January 2003 and 7 July 2007.

The prosecution has sought the maximum punishment, which could extend to seven years’ imprisonment.

When the court asked him if he had anything to say before sentencing, Thachankary cited health problems.

He told the court that he lived alone and had experienced chest pain two days ago.

According to the Vigilance case, Thachankary had accumulated assets and incurred expenditure amounting to about ₹64.70 lakh during the period under investigation without satisfactorily accounting for the corresponding income.

The investigation found that his assets exceeded his known income by 135.80 per cent.

The case was registered following a complaint by Bobby Kuruvila, alleging that Thachankary had acquired houses, flats and properties disproportionate to his known sources of income.

A Vigilance DySP led the investigation after Thachankary’s promotion to DIG in 2007.

By the time the chargesheet was filed in 2013, he had been promoted to ADGP. In 2020, he became DGP.

The chargesheet was initially filed in 2013 before the Thrissur Vigilance Court.

The case was later transferred from the Muvattupuzha Vigilance Court to Kottayam.

Thachankary challenged the proceedings, arguing that several assets came to him through family inheritance and gifts.

The Vigilance Court rejected his discharge plea, finding the charges legally sustainable.

The High Court and the Supreme Court also dismissed his plea for further investigation.

The prosecution examined several witnesses, including a former Joint Secretary of the Home Department.

The defence examined, among others, a former Additional Chief Secretary, a former Additional DGP, Income Tax officials and Thachankary’s sister.

The Vigilance investigation also pointed to alleged loss to the government due to non-payment of stamp duty in connection with a land purchase.

The trial concluded after the High Court directed the proceedings to be completed within a specified timeframe.

The deadline, initially fixed as June 30, was later extended to September 30.

The trial also witnessed controversy when Thachankary arrived at the Kottayam Vigilance Court in a private vehicle displaying a three-star board, an insignia generally associated with official police vehicles.

Ninety-six witnesses were examined in the case.

(Edited by Majnu Babu with inputs from Dileep V. Kumar).

journalist-ad