The conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires proof that a public servant possesses unexplained assets disproportionate to known income, with the burden to account lying on the accused.

JUDGMENT :

V. Srishananda, J.

Heard Sri T.G.Anandashetti, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The present appeal is filed by the accused who suffered an order of conviction in Special Case (Disproportionate) No.3/2004) for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by the judgment dated 04.10.2016 on the file of the Prl. District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bidar.

3. By the impugned judgment, accused has been sentenced as under:

(i) The accused Vithal, S/o Hanmanthappa Agharkhede, aged 74 years, retired Superintendent Engineer, Irrigation Department, R/o H.No.1-9-28:4 Khuba Plot, Gulbarga, since he is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 , is ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and also this Court imposed fine of Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty five lakhs only).

(ii) In default to pay fine amount, the accused shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one year.

(iii) Since the accused had not at all undergo judicial custody during the investigation, inquiry or trial, therefore, there is no question of giving benefit under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

(iv) It is further ordered that, necessary direction shall be issued to the concerned banks to remit the proceeds of the Fixed Deposits and the cash balance standing to the credit of the accused in his bank account and the proceeds thereof shall be appropriated and adjusted towards the fine amounts.

(v) If after adjustment, still the fine falls short, the gold and silver ornaments seized and produced before the Court as observed in the body of the judgment shall be sold to the Reserve Bank of India or State Bank of India or by public auction to make deficit of fine amount good. The rest of the gold, silver and jewellery shall be confiscated to the Government of Karnataka.

(vi) It is ordered that even after taking auction for recovery of fine amount as per clauses 4 and 5 above stated and falls short of recovery of fine amount, then the Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, Bidar, and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, Bidar, are directed to make arrangement by approaching Deputy Commissioner, Bidar, of auctioning immovable properties viz., house and landed properties of the accused to recovery of fine amount in its full extent as ordered above.

(vii) All the immovable properties agricultural lands situated at Karajgi village, Tq.Afzalpur and Mannur village, described in detailed in the body of the judgment shall be confiscated to the Government of Karnataka as per Section 452 of Cr.P.C.

(viii) The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

(ix) M.O.3 to M.O.28 are ordered to be confiscated in favour of the Government of Karnataka.

(x) M.O.1, M.O.2, M.O.29 to M.O.37 are ordered to be returned to the accused, since they are photographs of the accused and his wife and family members and toys.”

4. Being aggrieved by the same, present appeal has been preferred by the accused. During pendency of the present appeal, accused died. To contest the veracity of imposition of fine of Rs.35,00,000/- by the learned Trial Judge, legal representatives of the accused viz., wife and children have come on record as dependents of the original accused.

5. Facts of the case in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

The accused entered into service as a public servant in the