1992 (7) TMI 333 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disproportionate Assets: Whether the appellant possessed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.
2. Deduction of Claimed Income: Whether certain amounts claimed by the appellant should be deducted from the value of disproportionate assets.
3. Benami Transactions: Whether certain assets were held benami by the appellant.
4. Government Guidelines: Applicability of Government Memo No.700/SC D/88-4 dated 13.2.89 for computing disproportionate assets.

Summary of Judgment:

Disproportionate Assets:
The appellant was convicted u/s 5(1)(e) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, for possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The Trial Court found the value of disproportionate assets to be Rs. 3,47,601.49, which the High Court reduced to Rs. 2,37,842.00. The Supreme Court examined whether there was any error in the High Court's judgment regarding the value of disproportionate assets and whether the appellant satisfactorily accounted for these assets.

Deduction of Claimed Income:
The appellant claimed deductions for Rs. 56,240, comprising loans and gifts, which were not accepted by the lower courts. The Supreme Court, after examining the evidence, including income tax and wealth tax returns, held that the appellant is entitled to a deduction of Rs. 56,240 from the disproportionate assets. Additionally, the appellant claimed a deduction of Rs. 65,857.06 for gold ornaments belonging to his wife and daughter as Stridhana. The Court found the appellant's defense well-founded and allowed this deduction. Furthermore, the appellant claimed Rs. 86,998.22 standing to the credit of his daughter, which the Court did not find to be benami.

Benami Transactions:
The prosecution's claim that certain assets were held benami by the appellant was not substantiated. The Court referred to the principle laid down in Krishnanand Agnihotri v. State of M.P., emphasizing that the burden of proving a benami transaction rests on the person asserting it. The Court found no material evidence to support the prosecution's claim of benami transactions.

Government Guidelines:
The appellant sought the benefit of Government Memo No.700/SC D/88-4 dated 13.2.89, which allows a 20% margin on the total income of a government servant while computing disproportionate assets. The Supreme Court did not express an opinion on the applicability of this memo but noted its relevance.

Final Decision:
The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution did not satisfactorily prove the disproportionate assets. The conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court were set aside. The appeal was allowed, and the fine amount, if already paid, was directed to be refunded to the appellant.