IMPORTANT POINTS
If the amount alleged to be in excess of ‘known sources of income’ is duly shown in income tax returns with intimations to the Government, it has to be taken into account while assessing amount in excess of known sources of income.
If the net excess amount after deducting reported income works out to less than 10% of the total income, it will not amount to violation of violation of section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act.

JUDGMENT

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 16.12.2010 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2006 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment of conviction recorded by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Shiv Puri, Madhya Pradesh in Special Sessions Trial No. 4 of 1996 against the appellant herein.

2. The appellant joined the services of Public Health Engineering Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh on 15.07.1978 as Assistant Engineer and thereafter served in various capacities. According to the prosecution, during the period of 15.07.1978 to 9.02.1994, the appellant had earned total amount of Rs.3,86, 966/-as public servant but he was found to be in possession of assets worth Rs.7,97,243/-at the end of that period and as such he was in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the tune of Rs.4,08,077/-. Accordingly Crime No. 17 of 1994 was registered on 9.02.1994 by the Special Police Establishment, Lokayukta Sanghthan for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the Act, for short). After conducting appropriate investigation chargesheet was filed and the appellant was accordingly charged and tried.

3. The prosecution in support of its case examined 10 witnesses. The defence of the appellant was that:-

(i) On the occasion of his marriage he had received gifts from his in-laws, (ii) he had received certain sums as and by way of his share in family partition, (iii) he had received bequest under the will executed by his mother, and (iv) he had taken loan or advances for purchase of plot and construction from his relations and friends. It was submitted that every such receipt was duly intimated by him to the department. The details of such receipt and intimation as submitted, are as under:-

a. On 16.04.1984, the appellant got married and had received gifts from his in-laws such as Fridge, Colour TV, Sofa Set, Almirah, which fact was intimated to the Department vide letter dated 25.04.1984.

b. In 1987, in terms of the family partition that took place, an amount of Rs.1,45,000/-was agreed to be given to the appellant by his father. The father of the appellant gave an amount of Rs.60,000/-which was intimated by him to his Department vide letter dated 10.05.1987.

c. The balance amount was remitted to the appellant vide two Bank Drafts of Rs.45,000/-and Rs.40,000/-and the same was intimated to the Department vide letter dated 14.11.1991.

d. In the year 1987, the appellant wanted to purchase a plot of land, for which he took a loan of Rs.20,000/-from PW-6 Ramji Lal Agarwal, a friend and resident of the same area, which was intimated to the Department vide letter dated 03.09.1987.

e. In the year 1988-1989, the appellant had applied for a construction loan which had not been sanctioned by the Department till then. To ensure continuous construction work, he took loans or received gifts from his close relative, details of which were reflected in his letter to the department dated 15.12.1989. The details being:-

(i) On 09.09.1988 and 01.04.1989 he received gifts in cash of the amounts Rs.20,000/-and Rs.15,000/-from his brother PW 7 Brij Narayan and on 03.12.1988 and 10.04.1989 he received gifts of Rs.20,000/-and Rs.15,000/-in cash from his other brother PW5 Gopal Agarwal.

(ii) Furthermore, he took a loan of Rs.75,000/-from M/S Radhaballabh Dal Mills, a company in which PW 5 Gopal Agarwal his brother was a partner and the loan was given through a cheque.

f. On 17.01.1991 the mother of the appellant passed away leaving behind a will under which the appellant received an amount Rs.50,672/-which fact was intimated to the Department vide letter dated 14.11.1991.

g. In the year 1993, in order to purchase a gun, the appellant took a loan of Rs.10,000/-from his brother-in-law PW1 Kapoor Chand which fact was intimated by him to th