2005 Supreme(SC) 1567

2005(8) Supreme 782
Supreme Court of India
(From Madras High Court)
B.N. Agrawal & A.K. Mathur, JJ.
D.S.P., Chennai —Appellant
versus
K. Inbasagaran —Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 480 of 2002
Decided on 7-12-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Abhay Kumar, Advocate Subramonium Prasad, Advocate (N.P.).
For the Respondent : Chinmoy Khaladkar and Ajit Kumar Sinha Advocates.

Important Point
Initial burden is on prosecution to establish that accused had acquired property disproportionate to his known source of income and then it shifts on accused to offer plausible explanation.

Headnote:Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988—Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e)—Respondent-accused a senior IAS Officer was Secretary to Health Department of the State—Income tax Authorities laid a raid in his house and recovered huge cash amounting to Rs 30 lakhs, 7 gold biscuits weighing 819 grams, $ 1118 and certain documents regarding purchase of immovable properties and Fixed Deposit receipts of Bank of Rs. 25000/- in name of third parties—Conviction by trial Court for possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income—High Court set aside conviction holding that entire money had been admitted by his wife as earned from business but unaccounted—Appeal—Question was whether accused could be saddled with all the unaccounted money at his hand?—Both husband and wife were living together and wife was running three concerns though it were running in loss yet she could manage to earn black money—Initial burden was to be discharged by prosecution—Accused had provided satisfactory explanation that all the money belonged to his wife and Income Tax Dept. had assessed in her name—It was difficult to segregate how much of wealth belonged to husband and how much belonged to wife—Accused could not be held guilty of charge.

       Held : Now, in this background, when the accused has come forward with the plea that all the money which has been recovered from his house and purchase of real estate or the recovery of the gold and other deposits in the Bank, all have been owned by his wife, then in that situation how can all these recoveries of unaccounted money could be laid in his hands. The question is when the accused has provided satisfactorily explanation that all the money belonged to his wife and she has owned it and the Income-tax Department has assessed in her hand, then in that case, whether he could be charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is true that when there is joint possession between the wife and husband, or father and son and if some of the members of the family are involved in amassing illegal wealth, then unless there is categorical evidence to believe, that this can be read in the hands of the husband or as the case may be, it cannot be fastened on the husband or head of family. It is true that the prosecution in the present case has tried its best to lead the evidence to show that all these moneys belonged to the accused but when the wife has fully owned the entire money and the other wealth earned by her by not showing in the Income-tax return and she has accepted the whole responsibilities, in that case, it is very difficult to hold the accused guilty of the charge. It is very difficult to segregate that how much of wealth belonged to the husband and how much belonged to the wife. The prosecution has not been able to lead evidence to establish that some of the money could be held in the hands of the accused. In case of joint possession it is very difficult when one of the persons accepted the entire responsibility. The wife of the accused has not been prosecuted and it is only the husband who has been charged being the public servant. In view of the explanation given by the husband and when it has been substantiated by the evidence of the wife, the other witnesses who have been produced on behalf of the accused coupled with the fact that the entire money has been treated in the hands of the wife and she has owned it and she has been assessed by the Income-tax Department, it will not be proper to hold the accused guilty under the prevention of Corruption Act as his explanation appears to be plausible and justifiable. The burden is on the accused to offer plausible explanation and in the present case, he has satisfactorily explained that the whole money which has been recovered from his house does not belong to him and it belonged to his wife. Therefore, he has satisfactorily accounted for the recovery of the unaccounted money. Since the crucial question in this case was of the possession and the premises in question was jointly shared by the wife and the husband and the wife having accepted the entire recovery at her hand, it will not be proper to hold husband guilty. Therefore, in these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the High Court appears to be justified and there are no compelling circumstances to reverse the order of acquittal. (Para 16)