The court reaffirmed that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the quality of evidence over quantity, leading to the upholding of the acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Appeal is directed against judgment dated 30th June 2009, passed by court of Special Judge Anticorruption Kashmir, Srinagar (“Trial Court” hereinafter) in File no.3/B titled as State v. Mohammad Aslam Wani in case FIR no.28 of 1995 police station VOK under Section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act read with section 12 and 14 of J&K Public Men and Public Servants Declaration of Assets and other provisions Act 1983, acquitting accused, and for setting-aside the same and case of appellant-prosecution (VOK) against respondent/ accused may be upheld by awarding full punishment to respondent/ accused.

2. Impugned judgment is being challenged on various grounds including that it is against the law and facts and liable to be set-aside; that the Trial Court has misappreciated the law and evidence on record and has not appreciated the statement of prosecution witnesses in their totality; that there is enough evidence on record warranting conviction and sentence of accused/respondent; that Trial Court has not recorded any finding regarding admission made by respondent/accused while replying questionnaire served to him by Trial Court in pursuance of the proceedings under Section 342 Cr.P.C in which respondent admitted the value of his house at Bag-e-Hyder as Rs.3,37,000/- and the Trial Court has erred in law by not recording any finding on this important aspect; that Trial Court has not appreciated the object and purport of provisions of Sections 5 (1)(e) of PC Act which envisages a mechanism to be adopted by the trial court once the prosecution has established a case of disproportionate assets.

3. I have heard both the sides. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the facts of the present appeal and also gone through judgment impugned.

4. Briefly stating, the case as projected by appellant/prosecution originates from a communication dated 1st September 1995 addressed by Secretary to Government, Home Department, to respondent/ accused for not filing the property returns and possession of disproportionate assets and to explain his position in this regard and a copy thereof also endorsed to appellant/VOK; on which the Vigilance Organization registered an FIR no.28/1995 for offences under sections 5(2) of PC Act read with section 12 and 14 of J&K Public Men and Public Servants declaration of Assets and other provisions Act 1983 and investigation ensued. During the course of investigation, it is stated that house of accused was searched, seizures were made and information was gathered from the concerned quarters in order to establish the information received in the aforementioned letter. It is also stated by appellant accused has his debut in the State service in the year 1973 and by the passage of time he has risen to Class 1st Officer. Accused is alleged to have acquired assets both movable and immovable worth Rs.56,06,622/- and incurred expenditure in the sum of Rs.10,66,898.56 as against the income from his known sources which amounted to Rs.21,75,396.60/-. It is also alleged that accused has amassed wealth during the check period 1973-97 in the shape of a house at Hyderpora which is assessed at Rs.7,14,144, two flats at Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, assessed at Rs.6.28 lacs for flat no.7136 and 46.05 lacs for flat no.7258 respectively. He is alleged to be holding six Bank Accounts in different banks and to have transacted Rs.21,23,787/- during the check period. Besides his assets include furnishings, fixtures, el