9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Government of Andhra Pradesh that disproportionate asset to the extent of 20% can also be considered as a permissible limit. The margin of 10% to 20% of the disproportionate assets has been taken as a permissible limit, taking into consideration the inflatory measures. Since the value of apparels and slippers etc., are of insignificant value, I did not deduct this amount from the assets of DV & AC. The Prosecution has mixed up assets of Accused, firms and companies and also added the cost of construction i.e., ₹ 27,79,88,945/- and marriage expenses at ₹ 6,45,04,222/- and valued the assets at ₹ 66,44,73,573/-. If we remove the exaggerated value of cost of construction and marriage expenses, the assets will workout at ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 20 of 2015, 21 of 2015, 22 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 11-5-2015 - The Hon ble Mr. Justice C. R. Kumaraswamy,J. For the Petitioner : Sri L Nageshwara Roa For the Respondent : Sri B. V. Acharya JUDGMENT X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X In the case of KRISHNANAND AGNIHOTRI V/S. STATE OF M.P reported in AIR 1977 SC 796; wherein paragraph No. 33 reads as under: It will, therefore, be seen that as against an aggregate surplus income of ₹ 44,383.59 which was available to the appellant during the period in question, the appellant possessed total assets worth ₹ 55, 732.25. The assets possessed by the appellant were thus in excess of the surplus income a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 28,85,71,107 Less : (A+B) 28,85,71,107 TOTAL ASSETS 37,59,02,466 Statement of the income of Accused Nos. 1 to 4, firms and companies are as under : Sl. No. Particulars Amount (in Rupees) 1. Loans as income 18,17,46,000 2. Income from grape Garden 46,71,600 3. Gifts 1,50,00,000 4. Sasi Enterprises 25,00,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 6,45,04,222/- and valued the assets at ₹ 66,44,73,573/-. If we remove the exaggerated value of cost of construction and marriage expenses, the assets will workout at ₹ 37,59,02,466/-.The total income of the Accused, firms and companies is ₹ 34,76,65,654/-. Lack of proportion amount is ₹ 2,82,36,812/-. The percentage of disproportionate assets is 8.12%. It is relatively small. In the instant case, the disproportionate asset is less than 10% and it is within permissible limit. Therefore, Accused are entitled for acquittal. When the principal Accused has been acquitted, the other Accused, who have played a lesser role are also entitled for acquittal. In an appeal from a conviction it is for the appellate Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Trial Court has assessed the Marriage Expenses at ₹ 3,00,00,000/-. There is no acceptable evidence to point-out that A-1 has spent about ₹ 3,00,00,000/-. In spite of it, the Trial Court has arrived at a figure of ₹ 3,00,00,000/- as modest and conservative estimation. Arriving at ₹ 3,00,00,000/- towards marriage expenses and fixing liability of ₹ 3,00,00,000/- to A-1 alone is not proper. Most of the claims put-forth by the accused have been rejected by the Trial Court. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that without treating the witnesses as hostile, the witnesses were recalled and cross-examined. The questions are put in such a manner that whether what they have stated in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
