TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the High Court's acquittal of the accused for the offence of criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 could be sustained on the evidence relating to income, expenditure and assets; (ii) whether the receipts claimed as gifts, loans, rentals and other credits constituted lawful income or were merely unexplained or colourable entries; (iii) whether the materials established criminal conspiracy and abetment by the non-public servant accused in the acquisition and holding of properties and funds on behalf of the public servant; and (iv) whether the order of confiscation and forfeiture of attached properties could be restored.
Issue (i): Whether the High Court's acquittal of the accused for the offence of criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 could be sustained on the evidence relating to income, expenditure and assets.
Analysis: The High Court's approach to the comparative exercise of assets, income and expenditure was found to be erroneous. The assessment of income based primarily on income-tax material was held not to be conclusive for a criminal trial, and the High Court was found to have accepted several heads of income without independent scrutiny. The valuation of assets, especially the large constructions, was also found to be based on incorrect assumptions and arithmetical errors. The evidence accepted by the Trial Court on unexplained cash flow, bank transfers and asset accumulation was held to support the prosecution case.
Conclusion: The acquittal was not sustainable. The finding of disproportionate assets was restored against the accused.
Issue (ii): Whether the receipts claimed as gifts, loans, rentals and other credits constituted lawful income or were merely unexplained or colourable entries.
Analysis: The claimed gifts were held not to be lawful income for a public servant merely because they were reflected in tax returns or tax orders. The Court held that the legality of such receipts had to be examined independently in the criminal case, and that banking entries or post hoc documentation did not by themselves establish genuineness. Similar reasoning was applied to several loan and transfer entries, which were found to be part of a circuitous flow of funds rather than genuine independent income. The Court also held that the trial court was justified in rejecting several defence claims that lacked reliable corroboration.
Conclusion: The claimed gifts and several other asserted credits were not accepted as lawful sources of income.
Issue (iii): Whether the materials established criminal conspiracy and abetment by the non-public servant accused in the acquisition and holding of properties and funds on behalf of the public servant.
Analysis: The Court relied on the totality of circumstances, including the joint residence of the accused, the execution of a general power of attorney, the creation of multiple firms and companies in a short span, common bank accounts, frequent inter-account transfers, use of shell-like entities, and the absence of independent means commensurate with the assets acquired. It held that conspiracy can be inferred from a consistent chain of circumstances and that the non-public servant accused had actively abetted the offence by participating in the movement and deployment of funds and properties.
Conclusion: Criminal conspiracy and abetment were proved.
Issue (iv): Whether the order of confiscation and forfeiture of attached properties could be restored.
Analysis: The Court held that the Special Judge had jurisdiction to deal with attached properties under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 in a prosecution for scheduled offences. The forfeiture direction was held to be consistent with the statutory scheme and not barred by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. On restoration of conviction, the ancillary directions relating to attached properties were also upheld.
Conclusion: The confiscation and forfeiture order was restored.
Final Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside and the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court were restored, with the ancillary property directions also revived against the surviving accused.
Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution for disproportionate assets, income-tax assessments and bank entries are relevant but not conclusive, and criminal conspiracy and abetment may be inferred from a coherent chain of proved circumstances showing that the accused collectively held and routed assets and funds on behalf of the public servant.
TaxTMI 
