9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (2) TMI 1539 - SC - Indian LawsOffences punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) - award of the sentence - appellant here is on post of Inspector. An FIR was registered against the appellant by the DSP, CBI (ACB) u/s 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, alleging that the appellant was in possession of disproportionate assets. appellant held guilty of the charges and awarded the punishment by the Special Judge. Therefore, Appellant challenged the said order in this appeal. HELD THAT - Considering the facts of the case, we are of the view that a sum of ₹ 2,71,613.69 remained unexplained. The appellant entered into in service in 1972 and there is no break up so far as assets and expenditures etc. are concerned in the charge sheet though the check period covered both the Acts i.e. P.C. Acts, 1947 or 1988. Even if the said amount is spread over the period from 1987 to 1996, the alleged unexplained income remains merely a marginal/paltry sum which any government employee can save every year. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that judgments and orders of the courts below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and they are liable to be set aside. The appeal is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of FIR without written order/direction. 2. Procedural errors in the investigation and trial. 3. Admissibility and probative value of Ext. D-4. 4. Calculation of disproportionate assets. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of FIR without Written Order/Direction: The appellant argued that the FIR was lodged without the written order or direction of the Superintendent of Police, which is a statutory requirement. The court noted that the FIR mentioned an oral direction from the Superintendent of Police, and there was no evidence to suggest that this was incorrect. The court referred to previous judgments, stating that an oral approval could suffice to legalize further action. Therefore, the issue was deemed merely technical and not affecting the investigation's fairness. 2. Procedural Errors in the Investigation and Trial: The appellant contended that the investigation was conducted without proper authorization and that the sanction for prosecution was granted without considering Ext. D-4. The court cited multiple precedents, emphasizing that defects or irregularities in the investigation do not vitiate the trial unless they cause a miscarriage of justice. The court found no evidence of unfair investigation and thus dismissed this argument. 3. Admissibility and Probative Value of Ext. D-4: The appellant submitted Ext. D-4, detailing his assets and income, which was rejected by the lower courts for not complying with the Sikkim Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1981. The Supreme Court held that these rules are not rules of evidence and that the admissibility of evidence is governed by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The court found that the government had not prescribed the form required by Rule 19, making it impossible for the appellant to comply. Therefore, Ext. D-4 should not have been disregarded, and its contents should have been examined. 4. Calculation of Disproportionate Assets: The High Court had calculated the appellant's unexplained assets as Rs. 18,25,098.69. However, the Supreme Court noted that the income detailed in Ext. D-4 was ignored. When this income was considered, the unexplained assets amounted to only Rs. 2,71,613.69. The court also noted that the prosecution failed to prove certain bills amounting to Rs. 1,04,364.00, further reducing the unexplained assets to Rs. 1,67,249.64. The court concluded that this amount was marginal and could be reasonably saved by a government employee over the check period. Conclusion: The Supreme Court found that the procedural errors and the failure to consider Ext. D-4 led to a significant miscalculation of the appellant's assets. The unexplained income was marginal, and the appellant's compliance with the rules was hindered by the absence of a prescribed form. Consequently, the judgments and orders of the lower courts were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
|
