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) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT :

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/Accused officer challenging the conviction recorded by the Prl.Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases in CC.No.32 of 2004, dt.24.03.2008, convicting the Accused Officer under Section 13(1)(e) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) for being in possession of disproportionate assets of Rs.5,03,971/-.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant joined in government service on 11.04.1985 as Reserve Sub Inspector, Warangal range. Thereafter, he worked at different places till 26.02.1999 till his suspension from service. However, ACB conducted search on 29.01.2002 on the information that the appellant possessed assets disproportionate to his known source of income.

3. Having registered the crime, investigation was conducted and the ACB found that the appellant had acquired assets to an extent of Rs.14,21,329/-. The income was arrived at Rs.9,38,585/- and the expenditure was calculated at Rs.3,13,585.65 ps. According to the investigation the appellant was found to be in possession of assets to an extent of Rs.7,96,329.70.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 16 and marked Exs.P1 to P29. The appellant/Accused officer examined DWs.1 to 16 and marked Exs.D1 to D8 and also marked Exs.X1 to X14 which documents were summoned. The learned Special Judge having conducted trial and assessing the evidence on record concluded that the total income of the Accused Officer was Rs.9,77,665/-, total expenditure was Rs.3,17,777/- and the likely savings of the Accused Officer was Rs.6,59,888/-. The disproportionate arrived at by the Court was Rs.5,03,971/-.

5. The only point canvassed by the learned Senior Counsel Sri T.Niranjan Reddy appearing for the appellant was that the trial Court committed an error in considering the Asset No.1 which is house bearing No.5-1-196/3 which stood in the name of wife of the appellant as the asset of appellant though intimation was given by the appellant to the Government in his annual property statements. Ex.P3 is the statement of immoveable property submitted by appellant giving details of the said house site on 10.01.1999 that it belonged to his wife. The said statement was accepted by the defendant/Government. As such, both the ACB and the Court below committed an error in finding that the property belongs to the appellant. If Asset No.1 is eschewed from consideration as the property of the appellant, the appellant would succeed in the appeal.

6. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the ACB did not dispute the fact that the details of the property was intimated to the Government and that the property belongs to the wife of the Accused Officer. However, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the finding of the learned Special Judge who found that the father and the father-in-law did not prove their sources of income for acquiring the plot and constructing the building. For the said reasons given by the learned Special Judge, the conviction has to sustain.

7. Section 13(i)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

“13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant:

1. A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,-

(e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income.

Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "known sources of income" means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant.”

8. To prosecute a public servant for the offence under Section 13(i)(e) of the Act, the Public Servant who cannot satisfactorily account for being in possession of property and the resources ar