Back
2012 Supreme(Kar) 207
High Court of Karnataka (Circuit Bench At Dharwad)
K.N. KESHAVANARAYANA, J.
Sripada Gouda
Versus
State by Karnataka Lokayuktha Police Station, Dharwad
Criminal Appeal No.1170 of 2006 (C)
Decided on : 22-03-2012
For the Appellant:Shankar P. Hegde for M/s. Shankar Hegde & Associates, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Jagadish Patil, Advocate.
Headnote:PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 - Section 13 (1)(e) r/w Section 13(2): [K.N. Keshavanarayana, J] Appellant/accused was convicted for offences punishable under - Lower Court recording a finding that on oral and documentary evidence appellant/accused a public servant has amassed wealth disproportionate to known sources of income by means of corrupt activities - Held, Article 20 of the Constitution gives a protection in respect of conviction for offices. According to clause (1) of said Article, no person shall be convicted by any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence or be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence. When the appellant-accused received large sums of monies by sale of immovable properties, the provisions of law then prevailing did not compel the adjudicating authority to accept only such properties or pecuniary resources reported to the Disciplinary Authority as the only lawful sources of income while adjudicating as to whether or not a public servant had acquired assets disproportionate to his known source of income. Having regard to the situation in this case, the Special Judge could not have placed reliance on explanation to Section 13(1)(e) of the Act of 1988 to reject the contention of the appellant with regard to the monies which he had received by sale of immovable properties during the check period. Therefore, it is reasonable to hold that the income so derived has been utilized for the acquisition of the assets and also to meet the domestic expenses. If those incomes are taken into account and accepted as lawful sources of income, there is no circumstances to hold that the appellant-accused had acquired assets disproportionate to his known source of income. On the other hand, the income derived by him during his check period from all sources is more than the assets held by him and also the probable domestic verifiable and non-verifiable expenditures. Having regard to the discussions made above, that from the evidence placed by the accused there is no escape from holding that he has satisfactorily explained and accounted for the value of the assets held by him and also under various heads of expenses incurred by him and therefore there are no circumstances to hold that the appellant-accused has acquired assets disproportionate to his known source of income. The learned Special Judge has completely overlooked this legal aspect of the matter and therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Special Judge holding the appellant-accused guilty of the aforesaid offence is highly perverse and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Principal Sessions and Special Judge, convicting the appellant-accused for the office punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is hereby set aside.
1. This appeal is by the accused against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence date 12-6-2006 passed by the Principal Sessions and Special Judge, Dharwad in Special (SVC) C.C.No.13 of 1991 convicting the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act of 1988’) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.3,89,000/-for the aforesaid offence.
2. The appellant was appointed in Hubli Dharwad Municipality as a Surveyor on 1-7-1966. Later he was promoted as a Junior Engineer and ultimately retired from service on 30-3-1994.
3. According to the case of the prosecution, C.W.1-Y.V. Patil, Police Inspector, Lokayuktha Police Station, Dharwad, by 2-2-1989 received credible information that the appellant-accused has amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income by means of corrupt activities. On 2-2-1989, C.W.1 obtained a search warrant and conducted search in the house of the appellant on 2-2-1989 in the presence of the panchas and seized incriminating documents and other evidence from the house of the appellant. Investigation by C.W.1 revealed that the appellant has two minor sons and a daughter who were studying in schools and he has got 5 brothers who had no landed properties in Agadi Village or elsewhere; that on plot bearing Nos.14089/13 and 14088 situated in Rajatgiri on Kalghatagi Road, the accused has constructed ground floor of the house in 1980 measuring about 10 squares and first floor in the year 1998 apart from a outhouse built in the year 1978-79 and the approximate value of the house as well as the outhouse was more than 3 lakhs; that the appellant has purchased a Maruthi car in the name of his wife on 14-12-1988, the approximate value of which is about Rs.60,000/-; that he has also maintained a scooter cost of which was about Rs.10,000/-. His investigation revealed that the accused has assets approximately valued at Rs.3,70,000/-and the total amount of assets and expenditure was to the extent of Rs.6,12,000/-as against the income from the salary and other sources of Rs.2,80,000/-and thus he owns surplus asset worth Rs.3,32,000/-.On that basis, the investigation was continued and after getting the immovable properties and other assets held by the appellant-accused, assessed by competent persons, the Investigating Officer found that during the period from 1-7-1966 to 2-2-1989, the assets acquired by the accused was worth Rs.10,38,029/-and the expenditure incurred by him during that period was Rs.2,51,775.64 paise and his total income from all sources was Rs.3,86,137.27 paise and thereby came to the conclusion that the appellant-accused has amassed assets to the tune of Rs.9,03,667.56 paise in excess of his known sources of income which works out to 234%. The details worked out by the Investigating Officer to reach the conclusion was as under:
Particulars Assets Figure arrived at by the I.O. in Rs.
1. House property 5,66,820.00
2. Plot No.4178 20,000.00
3. Car 61,101.00
4. Luna and Kinetic Swift 18,098.00
5. Plot No.19 9,500.0
6. N.S.Cs. 4,320.00
7. Indira Vikas Patra 250.00
8. Shares in Co-operative Society 3,060.00
9. Members fees and deposit in Co-operative Society 5,606.00
10. Deposits in the names of wife and daughter 10,000.00
11. LIC Premium 15,406.91
12. Bank Balance 9,275.29
13. Household articles 2,42,591.00
14. Handloans given by the accused 72,000.00
Total assets 10,38,029.20
Verifiable Expenditure
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Stamp Duties Penalties paid to HDMC Domestic expenditure Electricity charges Telephone charges Education expenses Bank locker rent Dogs maintenance Payment of house tax Stall Rent House rent paid Vehicles maintenance Total 3,883.50 3,000.00 1,02,302.00 1,523.20 11,080.30 14,971.00 925.00 3,150.00 5,497.54 19,200.00 12,760.0
