JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Chandel, J. - The instant appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment dated 18.3.2010 passed by the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the PC Act'), Surguja (Ambikapur) in Special Criminal Case No.1 of 2009, whereby the Respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge framed under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the Respondent was a clerk and was appointed in the office of Chief Medical Officer at Ambikapur. He was charged for his having acquired disproportionate assets exceeding to his known sources of income in between the check period from 1.1.1974 and 1.2.1995. According to the prosecution case, on having received a credible information in regard to acquisition of disproportionate movable and immovable assets by the Respondent, investigation commenced and it was found that the Respondent had acquired too many movable and immovable luxurious assets in the name of his wife Amravati, daughters Ku. Rakhi, Ku. Nishtha, Ku. Shraddha, Ku. Pooja and Pragya Shukla. It was also found that the Respondent had made deposits of a huge amount in various banks as also in postal department. Investment was also made in Kisan Vikas Patra. It was also found that the Respondent maintained various bank accounts in the names of his family members. After calculating the total income and expenditure of the Respondent, it was arrived at the conclusion that in between the check period, the Respondent had earned a total sum of Rs.12,99,008.29 and spent a sum of Rs.24,20,567.95 and thus, the Respondent could not account for the access expenditure of Rs.11,21,559.66 apart from his known sources of income. On completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the Respondent/accused for offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. Charge was framed against him under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act.

3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 33 witnesses. In examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Respondent/accused denied the guilt and pleaded innocence. In his defence, the Respondent examined 4 witnesses.

4. On completion of the trial, vide the impugned judgment dated 18.3.2010, the Trial Court acquitted the Respondent/accused of the charges framed against him. Hence, this appeal by the State.

5. Shri Alok Nigam, Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Appellant/State submitted that the Trial Court has not justified by discarding the prosecution evidence especially of S.K. Tigga (PW24), who registered the First Information Report and raided the house of the Respondent and effected various seizures. The Trial Court ought to have appreciated that the various immovable properties were purchased by the Respondent for him and for his relatives for which the Respondent has failed to offer any satisfactory explanation about the source of purchase capacity. From the statement of N.R. Naik (PW15), Postmaster, it is established that investment in the names of minor daughters were also made. In this regard, the Respondent has not been able to give any explanation. From the statement of G.W. Tigga (PW7), it is also proved that various vehicles have been purchased and registered in the names of the Respondent himself and his family members. The Respondent has also failed to disclose the source of purchase capacity. From the other evidence also, it is established that the Respondent and his family members maintained various bank accounts in different banks and deposited various amounts in those accounts. The evidence available on record shows that the Respondent had disproportionately acquired movable and immovable assets exceeding the known sources of his income and thereby he has committed the offence punishable under the PC Act.

6. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava and Shri Malay Shrivastava, Learned Counsel