STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. WASUDEO RAMGHANDRA KAIDALWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State Government of Maharashtra has preferred this appeal, by special leave, against the judgment of the Bombay High Court, reversing the judgment and sentence of the Special Judge, Chandrapur and acquitting the respondent of an offence under S. 5 (2) read with S. 5 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter called 'the Act').

(2.) The respondent, Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar, was a Range Forest Officer, drawing a salary of Rs. 515/- per month. On September 21, 1969, PW 71, Patwardhan, Inspector, Anti-Corruption Bureau under authorisation from the Director, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Bombay, carried out search and seizure at the residential house of the respondent. The Inspector made a recovery of Rs. 26,870/- in cash from an almirah, savings bank accounts in the names of the respondent, his wife and children totalling to Rupees 12,588.35, national savings certificates worth Rs. 510/-, postal savings certificates worth Rs. 184.25 in the name of his daughter, Nandini, savings bank deposits with the State Bank of India and the postal savings certificates in the name of his brother-in-law, Narayan, amounting to Rs. 2,279.05, gold and silver ornaments, house-hold effect etc. of the value of Rs. 8,602.50, two sale-deeds in respect of two plots bearing Khasra Nos. 28/1K and 28/1 Dh in Chandrapur purchased (1) in the name of his wife, Smt. Sushila for Rs. 5,250/- and (2) in the joint names of his wife, Smt. Sushila and his brother-in-law, Narayan for an amount of Rupees 21,210/-, papers relating to the building of a house at village Gondpipri built in the year 1965 at a cost of Rs. 10,000/-. The petitioner was accordingly put on trial for having committed an offence punishable under S. 5 (2) read with S. 5 (1) (e) of the Act, being found in possession of assets disproportionate to his income.

(3.) The respondent abjured his guilt and denied the commission of the offence. He pleaded that he was leading a frugal life and all the property found during the search of his residential house belonged to his father-in-law, Hanumanthu, Pairokar of Raja Dharmarao, Zaminder of Aheri Estate. He alleged that two of the sisters of his father-in-law were the kept mistresses of Raja Dharmarao, and enjoyed special favours from the late Zamindar who bestowed on them large amounts of cash, ornaments etc. They used to visit the house of his father-in-law, Hanumanthu, once or twice a month, and to keep all their cash, gold and silver ornaments. Hanumanthu owned a grocery shop. He and his father had a liquor shop besides forest contracts. Hanumanthu used to deal in money-lending business. The respondent alleged that his father-in-law deposited an amount of Rs. 30,000/- in April 1957, Rs. 10,000/- in August 1957 and Rs. 35,000/- in cash and Rs. 1,000/- in coins and also 23 tolas of gold in September, 1957 with his wife. Smt. Sushila. He pleaded that his father-in-law died on March 10, 1958 at his house leaving behind his son, Narayan and two daughters, Smt. Shakuntala, who on her marriage with the respondent was re-named as Smt. Sushila, and Smt Sushila, his sister-in-law, minor at that time. He instructed him to divide the property into three equal shares among his three children. The respondent maintained that he was holding the property merely as a custodian and was not the owner thereof.