Back
G. JAYACHANDRAN
V. Dilip Singh Bhonsle – Appellant
Versus
Inspector of Police, SPE/CBI/ACB/Chennai – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., against the judgment of conviction passed by the learned IX Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, City Civil Court, Chennai made in C.C.No.20 of 2008 dated 26.12.2012.)
The appellant is an accused in C.C.No.20 of 2008 on the file of the IX Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. The case of the prosecution:-
Based on a source information, a case in RC MA.1/2007/A/0023 was registered on 30.05.2007 by SPE/CBI/ACB/Chennai, against the appellant V.Dilip Singh Bhonsle working as Conservation Assistant, Grade-II, Archaeological Survey of India, Mamallapuram Sub Circle, Kanchipuram District, Tamil Nadu under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e)of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the investigation was taken up.
3. The investigation disclosed that the appellant, during his service while functioning as a public servant in the Archaeology Department as Conservative Assistant from 01.09.2000 to 12.06.2007 at Kanchipuram and other places in Tamil Nadu, amassed wealth in his name and in the name of his family members to the tune of Rs.34,74,387/- and he had incurred major expenditures on immovab
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that a public servant possesses assets disproportionate to their known income.
The court reaffirmed the significance of lawful procedures in asset seizure under the Prevention of Corruption Act, emphasizing the requirement for evidentiary clarity regarding asset ownership.
In a prosecution for the possession of disproportionate assets, once the prosecution proves the public servant's known sources of income and the value of assets found in their possession, the burden ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for valid sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, as well as the importance of accurate valuation of assets and properties....
The trial court erred in acquitting the respondents, as evidence depicted assets acquired disproportionately to known income sources under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
