##PAGE1##

2026 INSC 1172 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 5399 OF 2025 V. GOPALAKRISHANAN .…. APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS THE STATE OF KERALA ..…RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

1. Appellant impugns order dated 29.01.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1937 of 2009, whereby his appeal against Judgment dated 27.08.2009, in Complaint Case No. 40 of 2005, was partly allowed by reduction of sentence only. By Judgment dated 27.08.2009, Appellant was held guilty of the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Digitally signed by and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs. 5,50,000/- with a default clause of Signature Not Verified rigorous imprisonment for one year. By Judgment dated 29.01.2025, the Deepak Guglani Date: 2026.10.28 Reason:

High Court while confirming the conviction, keeping in view the delay

1 PC Act for short.

occurred in concluding the proceedings and the age of the appellant and the trauma undergone, took a lenient view and reduced the sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.

2. Appellant entered the Government Service as a Lower Division Clerk on 13.05.1971. By eventual promotions, he became a Sub Registrar on 22.09.1993. As per the Respondents, while working as a public servant, he acquired assets by illegal means during the period from 01.01.1993 to 16.01.2001 disproportionate to his known source of income. It was alleged that as on 01.01.1993, the assets he and members of his family possessed were worth Rs. 1,93,898/-. As on 16.01.2001, the value of the total assets they possessed was Rs. 12,37,720/-. During the check period, they earned Rs. 10,12,117.20/-. and they incurred expenditure of Rs. 4,93,424/-. The sources of an amount of Rs. 5,18,693/- could not be explained by the appellant.

3. On 15.01.2001, a First Information report, FIR for short was registered against the Appellant under section 13(1) (e) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB Special Cell), Thiruvananthapuram, submitted a final report, based on which, subject Complaint Case (C.C. No. 40 of 2005) was initiated. Prosecution examined 45 witnesses as PWs 1 to 45 and marked 130 exhibits as Exhibit P1 to P 130. Appellant examined himself as DWl.

4. Prosecution produced Basic statements A, B, C, D and E. Basic Statement A contained the list of assets at the beginning of the Check Period i.e. 01.01.1993. As per Basic Statement A, Appellant possessed Assets valued at Rs. 1,93,898.26. Basic Statement B contained list of assets at the end of the check period i.e. 16.01.2001 which were valued at Rs. 12,37,720.00. Basic Statement C listed the income of the Appellant and his family members during the check period (i.e. in between 01.01.1993 to 16.01.2001) which was assessed as Rs. 10,12,117.20. Basic Statement D listed the expenditure of the Appellant and his family members during the check period i.e. in between 01.01.1993 to 16.01.2001 which was assessed as Rs. 4,93,424.00. Basis Statement D is in two parts. The First Part lists out the ‘Verifiable Expenses’ and the second part the ‘Non-Verifiable Expenses’. The Basic Statement E is the likely savings during the check period and is the computation of Basic Statement C (Income) minus Basic Statement D (Expenditure) and is shown as Rs. 5,18,693/-.

5. Basic Statement F is the computation for Disproportionate Assets which is arrived at by computing the value of Assets acquired during the check period which is calculated by subtracting assets at the beginning of the check period with that at the end (i.e. Basic Statement A (–) Basic Statement B). Then from the value of assets acquired dur