In corruption cases, an accused is acquitted if unexplained assets are below 10% of known income; a finding of less than 5% results in no grounds for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

V. SRISHANANDA, J.

1. Heard Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned counsel for the appellant-Lokayukta and Sri Avinash A. Uploankar, learned counsel for the respondent-accused.

2. The Karnataka Lokayukta, Kalaburagi has preferred this appeal questioning the validity of the judgment passed by the Special Judge, Kalaburagi in Special Case No.12/2017 (Lokayukta) dated 12.11.2020, whereby, the accused/respondent was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(e) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘P.C. Act’).

3. Facts in brief, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under:

3.1 The respondent/accused was working as an Assistant Engineer in Karnataka State Electricity Board. He discharged his work in Kalaburagi and Alland. When he was working as and Assistant Executive Engineer, Nodal Officer, 110/11, South MUSS, KPTCL, Kalaburagi, he was kept under observation for the amassing illegal assets than his known source of income to the prosecution. Check period was fixed from 20.11.1998 to 29.10.2013.

3.2 Information collected by the Lokayukta Police in the check period by taking the known source of income of the accused and the expenditure made by him, the Investigation Officer was of the opinion that accused held disproportionate assets and expenditure during the check period to the tune of Rs.1,56,54,222.58/- which was 82.65% more than the known source of income to the prosecution. Hence, filed the charge-sheet.

3.3 Presence of the accused was secured and charges were framed for the offences under Section 13 (1)(e) read with Section 13 (2) of the P.C. Act. Accused pleased not guilty, therefore, trial was held.

4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution in all examined 11 witnesses as PWs.1 to 11 and placed on record 94 documents, which were exhibited and marked as Ex.P1 to P94. On behalf of the accused, portion of the contents of statement No.5 at page No.82(B)(57) got marked in the evidence of PW10 - Investigating Officer as Ex.D1.

5. On conclusion of recording of evidence, accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded, wherein, accused has denied the incriminatory materials found in the case of prosecution put to him. Accused did not choose to file any written submission as is contemplated under Section 314 of Cr.P.C., nor placed any defence evidence on record.

6. Thereafter, learned trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties and by impugned judgment acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 13 (1)(e) read with Section 13 (2) of the P.C. Act.

7. Being aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the Lokayukta preferred the present appeal on the following grounds:

(i) That the judgement passed by the Trial court is contrary to the facts of the case as well as against the well established principles of law, besides being erroneous, hence the impugned judgement deserves to be set aside.

(ii) That the Trial Court without proper appreciation of the facts of the case and the evidence led by the prosecution has passed the order of acquittal in a mechanical manner which has led into gross miscarriage of justice.

(iii) That the Prosecution has examined 11 witnesses and got marked 94 documents to prove the case which has been over looked/discarded by the trial court without proper appreciation which has led into gross miscarriage of justice.

(iv) That the Trial court has failed to appreciate the fact that the accused h