2012 (11) TMI 1249 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Computation of income and expenditure during the check period.
2. Consideration of income from gifts and other sources.
3. Calculation of household expenses.
4. Validity of income tax returns as evidence.
5. Determination of disproportionate assets.

Summary:

1. Computation of Income and Expenditure During the Check Period:
The period from 01.01.1996 to 20.09.2002 was considered as the check period. The prosecution computed the appellant's income during this period as Rs. 11,10,055/- and expenses as Rs. 26,80,660/-, resulting in disproportionate assets of Rs. 15,70,605/-. The trial Judge found the appellant's income to be Rs. 13,38,103/- and expenses as Rs. 24,20,300/-, concluding that the appellant possessed Rs. 10,82,197/- in excess of known sources of income.

2. Consideration of Income from Gifts and Other Sources:
The appellant argued that several sources of income were not considered, including gifts from family members, loans, and agricultural income. The trial Judge did not account for these explanations. The court reviewed the evidence, including income tax returns and testimonies, and accepted that gifts amounting to Rs. 5,16,360/- (Rs. 3,80,000/- from the father-in-law and Rs. 1,36,360/- from the wife's embroidery work) should be added to the appellant's income.

3. Calculation of Household Expenses:
The trial Judge and the prosecution considered 60% of the appellant's salary towards household expenses. The appellant argued that only 30% should be considered, given his simple lifestyle and support from his agricultural family. The court found that 40% of the salary towards household expenses was appropriate, based on evidence and previous cases.

4. Validity of Income Tax Returns as Evidence:
The court held that income tax returns are public documents and can be considered as evidence. The returns submitted by the appellant and his wife were accepted to show the lawful sources of income, including the gifts and earnings from embroidery work.

5. Determination of Disproportionate Assets:
Considering the revised calculations, the court found that the appellant's income during the check period was sufficient to cover his expenses. The Lokayukta failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant possessed disproportionate assets. The court set aside the trial Judge's judgment, acquitted the appellant of the charges u/s 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and discharged his bail bond.