Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in corruption cases, and discrepancies in evidence can lead to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

M.G. UMA, J.

1. The State of Karnataka represented by Lokayukta Police, Vijayapur has preferred this appeal impugning the judgment dated 03.11.2020 passed in Special (Lok) Case No.14/2012, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge/The Special Judge at Vijayapur (for short ‘Trial Court’), acquitting the respondent/accused 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’).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that, the Police Inspector of Lokayukta Police, Vijayapur collected information about the accused who was working as Assistant Engineer in Public Works Department (for short ‘PWD’) and was a public servant. He submitted the source report suggesting amassing of wealth by the accused which was disproportionate to his known source of income for the check period from 10.11.1987 to 18.12.2008. It is the contention of the prosecution that, the accused had joined the services as Assistant Engineer and worked at various places in Vijayapur and Kalaburagi districts during the check period. As per the source report, the accused has amassed assets worth Rs.1,48,59,500/- while he was having only Rs.25,00,000/- the income from known source. Thereby it is suggested that, the accused has amassed disproportionate wealth which is around 594% when compared to his known source of income.

4. The Additional Director General of Police (for short ‘ADGP’) of Lokayukta had accorded permission to register the case and to conduct investigation. Accordingly, FIR in Crime No.14/2008 of Lokayukta Police, Vijayapur came to be registered. After investigation, the sanction was obtained to prosecute the accused and final report came to be filed. It is the contention of the prosecution that, the accused had income at Rs.41,91,496/- from known source and the assets and expenditure of the accused was Rs.66,21,601/-. Therefore, he had disproportionate asset to the tune of Rs.24,30,105/-. Thus, he was having disproportionate asset of 57.97% for which no satisfactory account is furnished by the accused. Thereby, he has committed the misconduct punishable under Section 13 (1)(e) read with Section 13 (2) of P.C.Act.

5. The accused had appeared before the Trial Court, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.56 and got marked Exs.P1 to P87 in support of its contention. The accused has denied all the incriminating materials available on record and examined DWs.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.D1 to D32 in support of his defence.

6. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all the materials on record, came to the conclusion that, the total value of the assets acquired by the accused during the check period was Rs.19,62,293/- and the expenditure during the said period was Rs.24,11,778/-. Thus, the assets and expenditure totally amounts to Rs.43,74,071/- whereas the income of the accused was Rs.86,72,547/- and thus it is held that, the accused was having excess income than his assets and expenditure. Therefore, the prosecution is not successful in proving the guilt of the accused for the above said offence. Accordingly, t