Back
K. SURENDER
S. V. Rama Chary @ Abdul Rahman – Appellant
Versus
State ACB, Hyderabad Range, Hyderabad – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/Accused officer challenging the conviction recorded by the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases in CC.No.15 of 1994, dt.11.10.2006, under Section 13(1)(e) r/w. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) for being in possession of disproportionate assets of Rs.1,99,251.67 ps.
2. The ACB filed charge sheet against the appellant/accused officer who was worked in the Medical and Health Department in various capacities during the check period from 04.07.1969 to 27.05.1991.
3. During the course of investigation, ACB found that the income of the appellant/accused officer was Rs.3,89,563/-during the check period and the expenditure incurred was Rs.2,79,072/-. The likely savings was Rs.1,09,491/-. However, the accused was found in possession of assets worth Rs.6,97,551/-. Accordingly, there was disproportion of Rs.5,87,060/-. The appellant was not in a position to explain for the disproportion of assets held by him for which reason, the charge sheet was filed.
4. The Prosecution examined PWs.1 to 27 and marked Exs.P1 to P42. The appellant/accused officer examined 7 defence witnesses DWs.1 to 7 and marke
The 'Explanation' to Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, does not take away the opportunity of a public servant to explain his income, only for the reason of not intimating to....
The court emphasized the importance of accurately determining the ownership of assets and the sufficiency of known sources of income in cases of alleged disproportionate assets under Section 13(1)(e)....
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.
The conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires proof that a public servant possesses unexplained assets disproportionate to known income, with the burden to account lying on the accus....
A public servant and abettors can be tried together for possession of disproportionate assets without a satisfactory account of their sources, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Public servants must account for assets disproportionate to known income, failing which it renders them criminally culpable under corruption laws.
The court established that under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the burden of proving lawful possession of assets lies with the accused when disproportionate assets are alleged.
The trial court erred in acquitting the respondents, as evidence depicted assets acquired disproportionately to known income sources under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The court affirmed that public servants must satisfactorily account for assets; the burden shifts to the accused once disproportionate assets are established by the prosecution.
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
