AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 1701
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. 3. The genesis of the prosecution lies in a complaint lodged by one Khuman Singh, resident of Betul Ganj alleging that the appellant, who at the relevant time was holding the office of Sub-Engineer, Irrigation Department, Mahi Project Patelabad, Jhabua, by abusing his post, had acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. FIR No.136 Dated 27.10.1992 was registered by Inspector, S.P. Establishment, Divisional Lokayukt, Office Bhopal and on the completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was laid to the effect that during the check period between 1970 to 1992, after adjusting the income and expenditure of the appellant, he was found to have acquired, by applying corrupt and illegal means while acting as a public servant, assets valued Rs.7,94,033/- which was disproportionate to his known sources of income and had thereby committed an offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. 4. The Trial Court framed charge under the aforementioned sections of law, punishable under Section 19 of the Act to which the appellant pleaded "not guilty" and demanded trial. 5. As the charge would disclose, the appellant during the check period was shown to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....une 1974, September 1979 to October 1979 and March 1982 to August 1990 had not been accounted for by the earlier investigating officer and admitted as well to have not added the same to the income of the appellant. This witness testified as well the agricultural annual income of Rs.10,000/- from village Baghoda which for the check period was quantifiable at Rs.2,22,000/- and thus his total agricultural income over the check period was Rs.29,22,000/-. He admitted as well that this agricultural income and the omitted amount of pay, if added, there would be no disproportionate assets qua the appellant. 9. The Trial Court while assessing the evidence on record with particular reference to the testimony of the aforementioned two witnesses came to a categorical finding that the prosecution version that the appellant had income of Rs.1,95,637/- during the check period was patently incorrect. It referred to documents on record and worked out for itself the pay which the appellant was supposed to earn during the periods omitted by the prosecution and computed the same to be Rs.1,93,208/- and adding the amount so calculated concluded that the appellant's income from pay during the check per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... expenditures, that the charge of acquisition of assets by the appellant disproportionate to his known sources of income as levelled stood established and consequently returned a finding of guilt under Section 13(1)(e) and Section 13(2) of the Act and sentenced him as above. 12. As would be evident from the rendition of the learned Trial Court on the two major heads of income i.e. pay and agricultural earnings, the learned Trial Court not only of its own embarked on an inquiry to ascertain and compute the figures, it wholly resorted to inferences in calculating the pay for the periods omitted by the prosecution as well as in fixing 60% expenditure from pay towards household needs. Its assessment of agricultural income of the appellant to say the least is also wholly presumptive in absence of any basis whatsoever in support thereof. This is noticeably in the face of the admission of the prosecution that while levelling the charge against the appellant of acquisition of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, it had not accounted for his income from pay vis-à-vis the periods omitted as well as from agricultural earnings. The figures ultimately arrived at by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned counsel for the appellant has insistently impeached his conviction and sentence contending that the prosecution had utterly failed to adhere to and prove the charge levelled against him and thus the impugned judgments are liable to be set aside, lest there would be travesty of justice. According to the learned counsel, not only the Courts below have grossly erred, in absence of any admissible basis, to calculate the pay of the appellant for the periods omitted as well as his agricultural income, the unfounded assumption of 60/50% expenditure towards household needs and field investments have rendered the findings on his income from the known sources as disclosed by the prosecution patently unsustainable in law and on facts. This is more so as the relevant witnesses of the prosecution have conceded that the income of the appellant from the pay for the periods excluded as well as agricultural gains, if included, would render the charge of disproportionate assets non est, he urged. As on the basis of the materials on record, the prosecution had failed to prove/establish that the appellant during the check period was in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....low has been subjected to a trial in which both the charges and evidence on aspects with vital bearing thereon lacked certitude, precision and unambiguity. 19. Section 13(1)(e) of the Act deserves extraction at this juncture: "13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant - (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct, - (a)................ (b)............... (c)................ (d)............... (e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, "known sources of income" means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant." 20. As ordained by the above statutory text, a public servant charged of criminal misconduct thereunder has to be proved by the prosecution to be in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate ....