Back
2011 Supreme(Jhk) 966
2012 (1) JCR 132
PRASHANT KUMAR
Damodar Mishra .......Appellants ( in both the cases)
Vs.
The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance.. .....Respondent ( in both the cases)
CRIMINAL APPEAL(SJ) NO. 212 OF 2010
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) NO. 1393 OF 2008
Decided on : 20 /10/2011
For the Appellants :Mr. B.P.Pandey, Sr. Advocate ( in both the cases)
For the Respondents: Mr. Nilesh Kumar, (Vigilance) ( in both the cases)
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove a public servant's known sources of income and the objective proof of disproportionate pecuniary resources or property under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The judgment also emphasizes the significance of fair investigation and the burden of proof in cases of corruption.
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act - Conviction under section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 substituted by section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 5(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - [5(2), 5(1)(e), 13(2), 13(1)(e)] - The court discussed the legal provisions of section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and highlighted the requirements for proving criminal misconduct by a public servant. The court emphasized the need to establish the public servant's known sources of income and the objective proof of disproportionate pecuniary resources or property. The judgment also addressed the burden of proof and the significance of fair investigation in cases of corruption.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 substituted by section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for possession of disproportionate pecuniary resources. The prosecution failed to prove the appellant's known sources of income and the exact value of the properties seized, leading to serious irregularities in the judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found serious irregularities in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, including the failure to establish the appellant's known sources of income and the exact value of the seized properties. The court also highlighted the illegality of relying on unproven documents and the lack of opportunity for the appellant to explain certain statements. As a result, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence were set aside.
Issues: The issues revolved around the failure of the prosecution to prove the appellant's known sources of income and the exact value of the seized properties, as well as the irregularities in the judgment, including the reliance on unproven documents and the lack of opportunity for the appellant to explain certain statements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the prosecution to establish the public servant's known sources of income and the objective proof of disproportionate pecuniary resources or property. It also highlighted the significance of fair investigation and the burden of proof in cases of corruption. The court further emphasized the illegality of relying on unproven documents and the necessity of providing the appellant with an opportunity to explain certain statements.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence were set aside. The court directed the release of the cash amount and documents enumerated in Annexure-1 to the petition dated 8.10.2009 in favor of the appellant.
Prashant Kumar, J: Cr. Appeal 1393 of 2008 has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2.12.2008 passed by Special Judge ( Vigilance), Ranchi in Special Case No. 10 of 1990 corresponding to Patna Sadar ( Vig) Case No. 20 of 1990, whereby appellant was convicted under section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 substituted by section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to under go R.I. for three years and also directed to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-and in default further undergo simple imprisonment for 14 days.
Cr. Appeal No. 212 of 2010 has been filed against the order dated 11.1.2010 passed by Special Judge, ( Vigilance) Ranchi in Special Case No. 10 of 1990, whereby the learned court below confiscated the cash, documents and other articles details of which given in Annexure-1 to the petition dated 8.10.2009 and refused to release the same as prayed by the appellant.
2. Cr. Appeal No. 1393 of 2008
The case of prosecution in brief is that the informant obtained a search warrant from the court of Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna in connection with Patna(Vig) Case No. 18 of 1990 for search of the house of appellant situated at Hehal, Ranchi. It is further stated that the said search warrant was handed over to Sri S. Hembrom, Dy. Superintendent of Police ( Vig), Ranchi for execution. Accordingly, Sri
Hembrom along with independent witness and other officers of Vigilance Bureau searched house of appellant on 26.5.1990. Thereafter three lockers of appellant opened and searched at Bank of India, Shyamli Branch, Ranchi, State Bank of India, Pandra Branch and Allahabad Bank, Main Road Branch, Ranchi respectively. It is further alleged that in course of search cash, ornaments, house hold furniture, motor car, motor cycle, documents showing investments in Unit Trust of India, different banks, Post office, NSS, NSC and documents showing purchase of lands, were recovered. The total of the aforesaid properties come to Rs. 1090432/-. It is also alleged that the son of appellant was a student at the time of search and a life insurance policy of Rs. 50,000/-was found in his name. Thus, it was presumed that premium of the said policy was also paid by the appellant. It is then alleged that the value of the appellant's house at Hehal was about Rs. 10,00000/-. It is further stated that the informant had received information that appellant spent a handsome amount in marriage of his daughter and son. It is also stated that standard of living of appellant is very high. It is then alleged that the properties recovered from the house and bank lockers of appellant were beyond the known source of income of appellant. Hence, it is alleged that the appellant had committed an offence under section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 substituted by section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. It appears that on the basis of aforesaid written report Patna Viglance P.S. Case No. 20 of 1990 under section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 substituted by section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered and Investigating Officer ( hereinafter referred as I.O.) took up investigation. It then appears that on completion of investigation, charge sheet submitted against the appellant under section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 substituted by section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It then appears that learned Special Judge, took cognizance of the aforesaid offences. Thereafter the charges under section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 substituted by section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. was framed. The record fur
