The Court held that the ACB's conclusion regarding the disproportionality of assets was erroneous and rejected it. The Court also held that the explanations provided by Respondent Nos. 9 to 14 for their income and assets were not satisfactory and that a prima facie case of cognizable offense was made out.

1. The Petitioner, as a concerned and informed citizen, has filed this Petition in public interest seeking investigation into the financial affairs of Respondent Nos. 9 to 14 who are members of one family and for registration of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, and Indian Penal Code. The Petitioner made a similar complaint for registering offence against Respondent Nos. 9 to 14 under the Income Tax Act which has been separately dealt with.

2. The Petitioner has contended that Respondent Nos.1 to 7 have, in collusion with Respondent Nos. 9 to 14 not carried out fair and impartial investigation into their financial affairs. The Petitioner claims that respondent No.9 has amassed a vast fortune by corrupt and illegal means and upon laundering monies received by him in the course of his public service which have not been accounted for and which require to be investigated. The Petitioner has given following particulars about respondent No.9 and his family members.

2.1. The Respondent No.9 is shown to be a “rags to riches” story. He serves as an MLA earning a salary of Rs.45000/- p.m. He hails from the State of Uttar Pradesh. He is stated to have come to Mumbai in the 1970s and to have worked as a handcart hawker of onions and potatoes and thereafter employed as a mannual worker in Roche India Ltd., doing shift duties. He dabbled in politics and was appointed Organising Secretary of the Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee (MPCC) in 1988. He rose to be its General Secretary and was nominated as a member of the Legislative Council in 1994. He stood for Maharashtra Assembly Elections in 1999, 2004 and 2009. He was appointed Minister of State for Home, Food and Drugs during 1999 to 2004. He served as a member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) and in 2006 was appointed as the All India Congress Committee Observer in the State of Jharkhand. He associated himself with one Madhu Koda who has been arrested and kept in judicial custody in the infamous Koda Scandal.

The academic qualifications of the Respondent No.9 are not commensurate with his status in life. He is shown to have studied only up to standard XII in his own affidavits statutorily required to be filed under the Representation of Peoples Act whilst standing for election at the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly.

2.2. Respondent No.10 is his wife who is admittedly a housewife, but who has been shown to be trading in commodities being gold and silver from about 2008 well after Respondent No.9 was entrenched in his political career and is shown to have amassed a sizable fortune in that trade. The academic qualifications of Respondent No.10 are unknown and unstated and diametrically against the finance background expected of a trade in forward trading.

2.3. The Respondent No.11 is the son of Respondent No.9 and has been educated in India and Abroad. He is stated to be a Pilot having undergone Pilot Training in the United States. He is not shown to have earned any scholarship and is presumed to have undergone the training upon the fees paid by Respondent No.9. Though some perfunctory investigation is stated to have revealed that it would cost Respondent No. 9 an equivalent of US $ 10,000/-, such fees for the training in the US cannot be accepted. It is common knowledge that such training would cost much more than such amount.

2.4. The Respondent No.12 is the wife of Respondent No.11, and like Respondent No.10, is also a housewife without any known or shown academic qualification.

2.5. Respondent Nos. 13 and 14 who are daughter and son-in-law are shown to be the other family members in close connection with the Respondent No.9.

2.6. Consequently, Respondent Nos.10 to 14 are stated to be abetters of Respondent No.9 having amassed wealth through Respondent No.9 who alone would have acquired such wealth and shown it in the names of Respondent Nos.10 to 14.

3. The Petitioner, therefore, claims that the assets and properties