PAPE GOWDA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has been convicted under S.5(1) (e) read with S.5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 18 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 6 months, by the Special Judge, Bangalore Division, Bangalore.

(2.) The facts leading to the prosecution of the appellant stated briefly, are these: The appellant is an Engineering Graduate. He was appointed as a Supervisor on 10-8-1955 in the HMT., Bangalore. He was started on a salary of Rs.160 plus allowance of Rs.38.99P. He served in that capacity till 1959 in which year he was promoted as a Foreman and his pay was raised in the scale of Rs.400-600. On 1-5-1962, the appellant was promoted as Deputy Manager in the Civil Engineering Department in the pay scale of Rs.700-40-1100-50-1250. After his promotion as the Deputy Manager, he was transferred to an other unit of HMT. at Kalamasserry in Kerala, a public sector undertaking managed by the Government of India. He was again transferred to Bangalore in November, 1964. During the period 'of his service from 1955 to 1965, the appellant had earned by way of salary and allowances, a sum of Rs.62,872-67 P. During this period, it is admitted, a sum ot Rs 25,922-10 P. was deducted towards motor vehicle advance, provident fund, income tax, insurance premium, house rent and other deductions. Thus, the appellant had received a net amount of Rs 38,679-77 P vide Ext P-188 During this period, the appellant had spent a sum of Rs 24,750 for maintenance of his family and for his personal expenses, as admitted by him in Ext.P-250.

(3.) During this period, the appellant purchased 3 cars and sold 2 of them. Bv this transaction, be made a profit of Rs.2,750. On this point, the conclusion of the learned Judge appears to be not correct. Admittedly, the ar used purchased 3 cars during this period, sold 2 of them and on the date he was charged, he was in possession of one car. Taking into consideration the transactions with reference lo those 3 cars, the appellant had made a profit of Rs 2,750. He was maintaining a car for which necessarily he had to spend some amount The learned Special Judge found that the appellant had spent a sum of Rs 6,000 towards the maintenance of the cars during the period although the appellant had shown having spent Rs.7.500 in the income tax returns It is not disputed that the appellant was paying premium of two insurance policies himself. The Special Judge took into consideration the statement of expenditure filed by the appellant vide Ext.P-250, on the basis of which he came to the conclusion that the appellant could have saved a sum of Rs.20,628-67P.