In a prosecution for disproportionate assets under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the burden rests on the prosecution to prove that assets standing in the name of a spouse were acquired using the public servant's funds; silence of the accused cannot shift this initial burden of proof.

Appeal under Section 372 /374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to present this Memorandum of Grounds of Crl.A., to this Hon'ble Court against the Judgment of the Spl. Judge for SPE & ACB Cases at Vijayawada, in C.C.No.5 of 1998, dt.12-10-07.

IA NO: 1 OF 2007 (CRLAMP 1935 OF 2007)

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the execution of the sentence passed by the Spl Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada, in CC.No.5 of 1998, dt.12-10-2007 and release the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the Crl.A., before this Hon'ble Court.

IA NO: 1 OF 2008 (CRLAMP 2475 OF 2008)

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to leave the petitioners to continue the Crl.A.No.1418 of 2007 pending before this Hon'ble Court.

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

1.A HARIPRASAD REDDY

2......

3.....

Counsel for the Respondent:

1.S.SYAM SUNDER RAO SC cum Spl P.P. For ACB

The Court made the following:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1418 OF 2007

O R A L J U D G M E N T:

The appeal is preferred by the appellant/convict/accused challenging the Judgment dated 12.10.2007 delivered in C.C.No.05 of 1998 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases at Vijayawada.

2. The Special Court convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short ‘the P.C. Act’) and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months, and also confiscated the disproportionate assets to the State after the appeal period is over.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they were arraigned before the learned Special Court.

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:

4. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant/accused worked as a Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Guntur, from 09.10.1994 to 26.10.1995. The appellant joined service on 02.06.1963 and continued till 25.10.1995. The appellant, during service as a Public Servant, acquired assets in his name or in the names of his dependents. They are disproportionate to his known sources of income earned during the check period i.e., from 02.06.1963 to 25.10.1995.

5. The Inspector, ACB, Guntur, registered a case under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act, 1988 against the appellant vide Cr.No.10/ACB-VJA/95 on 20.10.1995 and conducted investigation regarding his known sources of income, expenditure, savings and assets. The investigation discloses that the appellant’s income from known sources during the check period is Rs.16,83,752-76 ps. The expenditure is Rs.8,95,166-67 ps. The likely savings are Rs.7,88,586-09 ps. The worth of the assets in the possession of the accused is Rs.16,48,223/-.

6. Thus, it is found that the assets are disproportionate to his known sources of income, worth of Rs.8,59,636-91 ps. The Government of Andhra Pradesh granted sanction in accordance with law to prosecute the accused for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act, 1988. Hence, the Investigation Officer laid the report before the Special Court.

7. The Special Court charged the accused for the offence under Sec