9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. The selection of the period for determining disproportionate assets. 2. The beneficial ownership of joint bank investments. 3. The adequacy of deductions for carried-forward assets. 4. Credit for gifts and brokerage on fixed deposits. 5. Treatment of withdrawals from the bank account of the respondent's wife. Summary: Issue 1: Selection of Period for Determining Disproportionate Assets The High Court found the selection of the period from 1.4.1958 to 31.12.1968 for determining disproportionate assets to be arbitrary and prejudicial to the respondent. It suggested that the period should have been from 1946 to 1968 to provide a fuller picture. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the choice of the period must be determined by the allegations of fact on which the prosecution is founded. The Court emphasized that the prosecution discharges its burden once it establishes that the public servant is in possession of disproportionate assets, and it is then up to the defense to satisfactorily account for such possession. Issue 2: Beneficial Ownership of Joint Bank Investments The High Court held that it was erroneous to assume that the respondent was the beneficial owner of joint bank investments where his name was not the first name. The Supreme Court found this assumption to be erroneous, stating that the matter is guided by the terms of the agreement between the joint depositors. The Court noted that the respondent virtually acknowledged his beneficial interest in the deposits during his examination u/s 342 Cr. P.C. Issue 3: Adequacy of Deductions for Carried-Forward Assets The High Court found that the deduction of Rs. 41,839.17 as carried-forward assets from the period prior to 1.4.1958 was inadequate and should have been Rs. 56,822. The Supreme Court did not specifically address this issue but noted that the High Court's recalculations reduced the extent of disproportionate assets. Issue 4: Credit for Gifts and Brokerage on Fixed Deposits The High Court gave credit to the respondent for a sum of Rs. 6,000 as a probable gift from his mother and Rs. 1,275 representing brokerage on fixed deposits. The Supreme Court found the acceptance of the alleged gift from the mother to be unsupported by evidence but did not interfere with the High Court's overall conclusion. Issue 5: Treatment of Withdrawals from the Bank Account of the Respondent's Wife The High Court held that a sum of Rs. 82,827.99 withdrawn from the bank account of the respondent's wife during the relevant period should be treated as belonging to her and excluded from the value of the respondent's assets. The Supreme Court did not specifically address this issue but noted that the High Court's recalculations reduced the extent of disproportionate assets. Conclusion: The Supreme Court found errors in the High Court's approach and assumptions but did not interfere with its ultimate conclusion that the prosecution had not established the case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that a somewhat liberal view should be taken of what proportion of assets in excess of known sources of income constitutes "disproportion" for the purpose of Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was given the benefit of doubt.
|
