2023 (11) TMI 881 - HC - Indian Laws

Acquiring of assets disproportionate to known source of income - public servant - HELD THAT - It is a settled preposition of law that in case of disproportionate assets acquired by the Public Servant, the initial burden is on the prosecution to prove objectively the property found in possession of the accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income. After meticulous examination, this Court able to find that, if at all any benefit in error of assessment regarding the value of assets acquired during the check period to be given, it can only be to a tune of Rs. 1,99,260/- rounded off to Rs. 2 lakhs which is in respect of Architect fees and the value of household articles claimed to be received as gift. Even, if concession of Rs. 2 lakhs is given to the value of assets acquired during check period, the disproportionality will be reduced to only marginally and not to the extend to fall outside the scope of the offence under section 13(1)(e) of the P.C Act or Section 109 r/w 13(1)(e) of P.C Act. Thus, it is evident that the deceased first accused being a Public Servant had acquired wealth above 400% of his known source of income. From undeclared source, the properties been acquired by the public servant (A1) in his name and in the name of his wife (A-2) also in the name of his minor children. A-2 have lend her name for purchasing the property through source undeclared. Therefore, the trial Court judgement of conviction dated 15/11/2000 is hereby confirmed. The offence being acquiring wealth by a public servant beyond his known source of income and A-2 for aiding the public servant, had been sentenced for one year R.I being the minimum sentence prescribed under the law. So there cannot be further reduction of sentence. In such circumstances, the appellant/A2 has to be sentenced to undergo atleast the minimum sentence which is one year. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial Court in Special stands confirmed. The trial Court is directed to secure the appellant/accused-2 and commit her to the prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence. Any period of imprisonment if already undergone by the accused shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant, a public servant, acquired disproportionate assets.
2. Whether the trial court correctly assessed the value of the assets and income.
3. Whether the appellant's wife aided in the acquisition of disproportionate assets.
4. Whether the trial court's conviction and sentence were justified.

Summary:

Issue 1: Disproportionate Assets
The appellant, a public servant, was accused of acquiring properties disproportionate to his known sources of income, amounting to Rs. 38,72,545/- during the check period from 16.06.1991 to 09.05.1996. The trial court found him guilty under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. His wife was also tried for aiding him in committing the offense.

Issue 2: Assessment of Assets and Income
The trial court determined the value of the assets acquired by the appellant as Rs. 35,25,136/- and his known income during the check period as Rs. 7,96,738/-. The court excluded certain amounts based on the defense's claims and re-evaluated the value of some properties and expenses. Despite the defense's argument that the income tax returns and additional documents (Ex.D-16 and Ex.D-17) should be considered, the court held that these documents were not sufficient to prove the legality of the assets acquired.

Issue 3: Aiding by the Appellant's Wife
The appellant's wife was found guilty under Section 109 I.P.C. r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for aiding her husband by allowing properties to be acquired in her name and their minor children's names. The court held that she had no independent source of income and had assisted her husband in amassing wealth beyond their known sources of income.

Issue 4: Justification of Conviction and Sentence
The trial court's judgment was confirmed, with the appellant's wife sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The court acknowledged the prolonged legal proceedings and the appellant's wife's age but upheld the minimum sentence prescribed by law. The value of the assets acquired was slightly reduced, but the disproportionate assets still exceeded 400% of the known income.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's judgment was upheld. The trial court was directed to secure the appellant's wife to undergo the remaining period of her sentence. The order for forfeiting properties to recover Rs. 33,25,165/- with interest was confirmed.