Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT KALABURAGI BENCH
M.G.UMA
State of Karnataka – Appellant
Versus
Chandrashekhar S/o Venkanna Chavan – Respondent
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 che
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in corruption cases, and discrepancies in evidence can lead to acquittal.
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.
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.
A discharge in a corruption case requires establishing no prima facie case exists; discrepancies in assets vs. income must be reliably demonstrated.
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 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 ruled that a special judge's discharge finding is flawed if it performs a mini trial rather than evaluating evidence for the basis of accusations, necessitating a trial.
The prosecution must prove disproportionate assets beyond reasonable doubt, allowing a 10% margin for known income, which was not established in this case.
Public servants are liable under the Prevention of Corruption Act for properties acquired in excess of their known income, requiring satisfactory accounting for assets held by family members.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
