In disproportionate asset cases, once the prosecution proves assets exceed a public servant's known lawful income, the burden shifts to the accused. The accused must 'satisfactorily account' for the wealth, proving it derives from disclosed, lawful sources in compliance with mandatory official conduct regulations.

JUDGMENT :

Gita Gopi, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 27 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the ‘Act’) read with Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.05.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) Mirzapur, Ahmedabad in Special A.C.B. Case No.1-2/2005, whereby appellant - accused came to be convicted under Section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘P.C. Act’) and was ordered to undergo two years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation that in failure to pay the fine amount, to suffer further six months simple imprisonment.

1.1 The trial initially, was conducted against three accused under sections 7 along with section 12, 13(1)(a)(e) and 13(2) of the P.C. Act. Consequently, accused Nos.2 and 3, who were brother-in-law and wife respectively of the appellant, were acquitted from all the charges.

2. As per the prosecution case, the appellant - accused during the period from 10.06.2002 to 01.10.2002, while serving as Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Pardi, Valsad in abetment with accused No.2, brother-in-law of accused No.1 and No.3 the wife of accused No.1, while serving as a public servant, abused the position and illegally demanded and accepted bribe from prosecution witnesses.

2.1 Further it was alleged that Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakh) was received on 22.11.2002 from the resident of Rajkot, Sumatilal and his wife Nilamben, by falsely representing the same to be a gift and the immovable property situated within the limits of Mangrol Nagar Palika bearing Survey No.7618 admeasuring 746.64 sq.mtrs. valued at Rs.5,51,100/- (Rupees Five Lacs Fifty One Thousand One Hundred only) together with a house thereon was purchased in the name of the wife of the appellant, the acquitted accused No.3, land valued at Rs.26,23,200/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Twenty Three Thousand Two Hundred) and house Rs.9,49,750/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Forty Nine Thousand Seven Hundered Fifty only) aggregating to Rs.35,72,950/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Seventy Two Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty), the said property was referred as grossly disproportionate to the known sources of income of appellant - accused No.1. Accused No.1 as public servant in collusion with other accused, illegally, apart from legal remuneration, accepted money and got the above valued property transferred, while abusing the position of Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate (First Class), thereby committed offence under section 7, 12, 13(1)(a)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2.2 The prosecution alleged that appellant demanded Rs.4 Lacs for the cases of Shri Chemicals and Rs.3 Lacs for Shivam Chemicals pending before his Court through advocate Shri Pravinbhai, and the said advocate and one Shantibhai went to Pardi and gave Rs.7 Lacs to Pradeepbhai (A2), brother-in-law of appellant, and in evening the cases were disposed off.

2.3 The conviction which f