Back
2007(5) Supreme 554
Supreme Court of INdia
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat & P.P. Naolekar, JJ.
N.P. Jharia — Petitioner
versus
State of M.P. — Respondent
Appeal (crl.) 1262 of 2001
Decided on : 30-07-2007
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 – Section 5(1)(e) r/w 5(2) – In view of the trial court and High Court meticulously examining the income and expenditure of the appellant along with that of his wife, and that too on a liberal side, and arriving at conclusion of disproportionate assets, no scope for interference. (Para 16)
Facts of the case :
The appellant was appointed as Sales Tax Officer on 16.9.1975 and he was occupying that post during the check period 16.9.1975 to 31.12.1983 and he was in possession of pecuniary resources and property worth Rs.10,19,210/- as disproportionate to his known sources of income. Proceedings were accordingly initiated. After investigation the Special Police Establishment had submitted “final report” on l.3.1990 informing the court that no offence is made out against the appellant. That final report was accepted by the Special Judge on 17.4.1990. But on 1.7.1992 the S.P.E. submitted an application before the Special Judge for permission for further investigation. The Special Judge permitted further investigation. Thereafter, the sanction for prosecution was obtained from the State Government on 1.3.1995. The charge sheet was filed in the Court on 24.7.1995. Conviction by the trial court was upheld by the High Court.
Findings of the Court :
No error in trial court and High Court concluding that appellant had disproportionate assets.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.—
1.It is a strange co-incidence that the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was enacted in the year of our country’s independence.
2.Corruption is one of the most talked about subjects today in the country since it is believed to have penetrated into every sphere of activity. It is described as wholly widespread and spectacular.
3.Corruption as such has reached dangerous heights and dangerous potentialities. The word ‘corruption’ has wide connotation and embraces almost all the spheres of our day to day life the world over. In a limited sense it connotes allowing decisions and actions of a person to be influenced not by rights or wrongs of a cause, but by the prospects of monetary gains or other selfish considerations. Avarice is a common frailty of mankind, and while Robert Walpole’s observation that every man has a price, may be a little generalized, yet it cannot be gainsaid that it is not far from truth. Burke cautioned “Among a people generally corrupt, liberty cannot last long”.
4.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur, upholding conviction of appellant for offence punishable under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Act. The trial Court had while recording conviction sentenced the appellant to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.75,000/-. The High Court reduced the sentence to one year while maintaining the fine. With the modification of sentence the appeal was dismissed.
5.Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows :
“The appellant was appointed as Sales Tax Officer on 16.9.1975 and he was occupying that post during the check period 16.9.1975 to 31.12.1983. He was married to Pushpa Jharia (D.W.1) in the year 1969 and he has three children. During the period 16.9.1975 to 31.12.1983 the appellant was in possession of pecuniary resources and property worth Rs.10,19,210/- as disproportionate to his known sources of income. Proceedings were accordingly initiated. After investigation the Special Police Establishment (in short ‘SPE’) had submitted “final report” on l.3.1990 informing the court that no offence is made out against the appellant. That final report was accepted by the Special Judge on 17.4.1990. But on 1.7.1992 the S.P.E. submitted an application before the Special Judge for permission for further investigation. The Special Judge permitted further investigation. Thereafter, the sanction for prosecution was obtained from the State Government on 1.3.1995. The charge sheet was filed in the Court on 24.7.1995.
6.Accused pleaded not guilty and his version was that he had satisfactorily accounted for all the properties not only in his own name, but also in the name of his wife.
7.The Special Judge after an exhaustive and elaborate consideration of all the documentary and oral evidence on record came to the conclusion that the total income of the appellant and his wife was Rs.9,32,086.90 and the expenditure was Rs.18,81,745.81 and thus the value of the disproportionate assets was Rs.9,49 658/- It was further held that the submission of the Final Report once by the investigating agency was not a legal bar to make further investigation and file the charge-sheet. It has also been found that the sanction for the prosecution is valid and proper.
8.High Court referred to the various items of expenditure, the assets acquired, the sources and the incomes. It was held that the assessee had explained the income of himself and his wife from the known sources for a sum of Rs.2,62,061/- while the assets found were Rs.10,79,438/-. Therefore the value of the disproportionate assets was of Rs.8,17,377/-. The High Court held that in respect of certain items of income the trial court was rather charitable but since the State has not questioned the computation, the same was to be accepted.
9.Accordingly, the conclusions of the trial court were upheld and the appeal
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
