1992 (7) TMI 335 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge to judgment confirming conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act
- Discrepancy in calculation of disproportionate assets
- Allegations of benami transactions
- Examination of evidence and errors in asset calculation

Analysis:
The appeal challenges the judgment confirming the appellant's conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant, a public servant, was found possessing assets disproportionate to his known income sources. The High Court reduced the sentence but upheld the conviction. The main issue is the discrepancy in calculating the total unaccounted disproportionate assets. The appellant argues that certain amounts should be deducted from his assets, totaling &8377; 97,968, which would eliminate the alleged disproportion and even leave a surplus. The key questions are whether the High Court's finding is supported by legal evidence and if the appellant has satisfactorily accounted for his assets.

Regarding the errors in asset calculation, the appellant challenges the High Court's failure to consider all evidence properly. The appellant's counsel argues that certain expenditures and income sources were wrongly included in the asset calculation. For instance, discrepancies in well sinking costs and income from leasehold land were highlighted. The appellant contends that after deducting &8377; 97,968 from his assets, there would be no disproportion, even without a 10% margin. The court assesses the evidence presented and discrepancies in asset valuation.

The judgment also addresses allegations of benami transactions involving properties registered in the names of the appellant's father and wife. The court scrutinizes the evidence and rejects the prosecution's claim of benami ownership. It is established that the father had means to purchase the property, and the benami transaction allegations are unfounded. The court discredits the High Court's inclusion of &8377; 29,000 in assets without conclusive evidence. Additionally, income from leasehold land and sale of pulses is added to the appellant's total income, further reducing the alleged disproportion.

Ultimately, the court finds that after deducting the disputed amount from the alleged disproportionate assets, the appellant is acquitted as the prosecution failed to prove the disproportionate holdings. The conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act is set aside, and the fine amount, if paid, is to be refunded. The judgment highlights the importance of accurate asset valuation and the burden of proof in corruption cases.