The case had also drawn attention during the trial after Thachankary arrived at the Kottayam Vigilance Court in a private car displaying a three-star insignia associated with his former official rank.

Kottayam (Kerala): Former Kerala Director General of Police (DGP) Tomin J. Thachankary was found guilty by the Kottayam Vigilance Court on Thursday in a case related to alleged accumulation of disproportionate assets while he was in service.
The case concerns the period from January 2003 to July 2007, when the Vigilance alleged that Thachankary accumulated assets and incurred expenditure worth Rs 64.70 lakh that were disproportionate to his known sources of income.
Kottayam Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance) K.V. Rajaneesh pronounced the verdict. The trial was completed on Wednesday following a High Court direction to conclude the proceedings within a specified timeframe.
When the judge asked Thachankary whether he had anything to say, he reportedly told the court that he had health problems. He said he lived alone and had experienced chest pain two days earlier.
The prosecution sought the maximum punishment. The court is expected to pronounce the sentence at around 2 pm. The offence carries a maximum sentence of up to seven years' imprisonment.
Case dates back to 2007
The case originated from a complaint filed by Bobby Kuruvila, alleging that Thachankary acquired houses, flats and other properties during his service that were not proportionate to his income.
The Vigilance completed its investigation in 2013 and subsequently filed the chargesheet. According to the investigation, expenditure amounting to Rs 64.70 lakh was identified during the period under scrutiny, but Thachankary could not account for the corresponding income, the prosecution alleged.
The investigating team calculated that the assets acquired during the period were 135.80 per cent higher than his known sources of income.
The investigation was conducted under a Deputy Superintendent of Police after Thachankary was promoted as a Deputy Inspector General (DIG) in 2007. By the time the chargesheet was filed, he had risen to the post of State Police Deputy Chief.
Defence challenged prosecution allegations
During the trial, the prosecution examined several witnesses, including a former Joint Secretary of the Home Department.
The defence examined a former Additional Chief Secretary, a former Additional Director General of Police, Income Tax officials and Thachankary's sister.
Thachankary had earlier approached the court seeking discharge from the case. He argued that the properties under scrutiny had been received as family shares and through gifts.
The court rejected the discharge petition after finding that the chargesheet could stand, allowing the proceedings to continue.
The trial was conducted following a High Court direction to complete the proceedings within a specified timeframe.
The High Court had initially directed the Vigilance Court to pronounce the verdict by June 30. The deadline was subsequently extended to September 30.
The trial concluded on Wednesday, paving the way for Thursday's verdict.
Vigilance Public Prosecutor Adv. K.K. Sreekanth appeared for the prosecution.
Three-star vehicle controversy during trial
The case had also drawn attention during the trial after Thachankary arrived at the Kottayam Vigilance Court in a private car displaying a three-star insignia associated with his former official rank.
The incident led to a complaint. It sought an investigation into whether a retired police officer had improperly used a vehicle displaying an official insignia reserved for serving officers of DGP and ADGP rank.
Thachankary had reportedly said the use of the insignia was a mistake by the driver. The vehicle was driven through Kottayam town and parked near the Vigilance Court, attracting attention from the media and the public.
The controversy emerged while the disproportionate assets case was being heard by the Vigilance Court.
Published: 17 Sept 2026, 11:19 am IST
Get Latest Mathrubhumi Updates in English
Disclaimer: Kindly avoid objectionable, derogatory, unlawful and lewd comments, while responding to reports. Such comments are punishable under cyber laws. Please keep away from personal attacks. The opinions expressed here are the personal opinions of readers and not that of Mathrubhumi.

