9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (9) TMI 1184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revention of Corruption Act, 1947. The appellant, after the prosecution obtained requisite sanction, was sent up for trial. Charges were framed and evidence was led. The learned IVth additional special judge, Madras, on appreciation of evidence, both documentary aria oral, vide judgment dated 09.07.1990, acquitted the appellant of all the charges by a detailed judgment. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal recorded by the learned IVth additional special judge, the state filed an appeal against the acquittal of appellant before the High Court of Madras. By an order dated 24.12.1998, the High Court accepted the appeal of the state and reversed the order of acquittal of the appellant. The appellant was convicted for offences under Section 13(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court, thereafter, analysed the evidence of the record de novo and observing that the lower court had not properly appreciated vital circumstances of the case went on to hold: Hence, on an analysis, I am satisfied that the prosecution has proved satisfactorily that the accused was in possession of assets during the check period, disproportionate to the known source of his income, and this in fact has not been received from lawful source and that the receipt has not been intimated in accordance with the provisions of law and thus, the accused has committed criminal misconduct and acquisition of such disproportionate income is attributable only to corrupt practice and therefore, the accused is guilty under Section 13(e) of the Preventi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot substitute Section 13 in place of Section 5 of the 1947 Act. Section 30(2) is applicable without prejudice to the application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 . In our opinion, the application of Section 13 of the 1988 Act to the fact situation of the present case would offend Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, which, inter alia provides that repeal shall not (i) affect previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder or (ii) affect any investigation legal proceedings or remedy in respect of any such rights, privilege, obligation, penalty, forfeiture of punishment. Section 13 both in the matter of punishment as also by the addition of the explanation to Section 13(1)(e) is mate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the submission of learned counsel for the state that PW-31 being the mother-in-law of the appellant who had supported the explanation offered by the appellant regarding receipt of Rs. 50,000/-and Rs. 40,000/- by him from her should not be believed. She is a prosecution witness. She was never declared hostile. Prosecution cannot wriggle out of her statement. As a matter of fact, the main sustenance is sought by the High Court of its view on the basis of her evidence. The explanation offered by the appellant has not been accepted by the High Court by invoking proviso to Section 13(1)(e). The High Court has opined that since amount allegedly received by the appellant from his mother-in-law had not been intimated in accordance with the provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
