VASANT TUKARAM PAWAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Refusal by the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench to accept the prayer of the appellant for suspension of sentence and to be released on bail while admitting the appeal filed by him, is questioned in this Appeal.

(3.) Factual background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The appellant faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the Act). The allegation against the appellant was that he was in possession of property worth Rs. 4,12,297/- which was disproportionate to his known sources of income. Appellant faced trial in the Court of Special Judge, Dhule in Special Case No. 77 of 1996. After considering the available materials on record, the trial court held that the accused-appellant was in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The conclusion was arrived at after taking note of the pecuniary resources of the accused-appellant. The trial court held that the extent of the disproportionate assets amounted to Rs. 3,10,784/-. Accordingly, he was convicted for offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- with default stipulation. In confiscation proceedings certain properties were forfeited to the State Government and these properties had been attached during trial. Against the conviction and sentence appeals have been filed before the Bombay High Court. Prayer for bail was made primarily on the ground that the evidence was not sufficient to show that the alleged assets acquired were beyond the known sources of income. It was pointed out that the accused was on bail during trial and considering his age, (he was nearly 66 years, he ought to be released on bail. In essence, the prayer was for suspension of the sentence and grant of bail. The High Court noted that this was not a fit case where it would be desirable to release the appellant on bail during pendency of the appeal and to suspend the order of the conviction and sentence as prayed for. It was noted that the fine imposed had not been deposited. Further, on consideration of materials on record the amount of disproportionate assets has been worked out. However, the hearing of the appeals was directed to be expedited.