IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT KALABURAGI BENCH
V. SRISHANANDA
State of Karnataka – Appellant
Versus
Veerabhadra S/o Chandram Salimani – Respondent
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 accus
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.
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in corruption cases, and discrepancies in evidence can lead to acquittal.
A discharge in a corruption case requires establishing no prima facie case exists; discrepancies in assets vs. income must be reliably demonstrated.
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 accus....
The court reaffirmed the significance of lawful procedures in asset seizure under the Prevention of Corruption Act, emphasizing the requirement for evidentiary clarity regarding asset ownership.
The court affirmed that public servants must satisfactorily account for assets; the burden shifts to the accused once disproportionate assets are established by the prosecution.
The court clarified that for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution must demonstrate clear excess assets beyond known income, while the burden of explanation shifts to t....
The main legal point established is that in cases of disproportionate assets, the calculation of total income and surplus income is crucial, and if the surplus income is less than 10% of the total in....
Acquisition of assets disproportionate to known sources of income – Probative value of Orders of Income Tax Authorities, including Order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and subsequent Assessment Ord....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the charge can be framed based on the possibility of the commission of a crime, even if the case is based on circumstantial evidence. The Cour....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.