RAJAIAH, SON OF RANGAIAH, ASSISTANT AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, D.L.D.B., TUMKUR, RESIDENT OF MANJU KRUPA, KEB LAYOUT, BATAWADE, TUNIKUR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE, TUMKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the Lokayukta.

(2.) The appellant was the accused before the court below who was accused of offences punishable under Sections 13( 1 )(e) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'PC Act', for brevity). It was the case of the prosecution that a raid was conducted on the residential house of the accused on 21.5.1994 and his office on 23.5.1994 and from the materials that were collected, it is seen that during the check period, namely, from the year 1969 to 1994, the income earned by the appellant was Rs.7,45,920.00 and during the same period, assets worth Rs.5,79,659.00 were acquired by the accused in his own name and also in the name of his wife and children and the expenses incurred for the said period were in a sum of Rs.4,42,894.00. Thus, there was excess earning of Rs.2,76,633.00. It is on this basis that a charge sheet was filed against the accused and he had entered appearance and was admitted to bail. The plea of the accused was recorded and on being called upon to substantiate its case, the prosecution had examined 30 witnesses out of 53 that were cited and got marked 75 exhibits. The statement of the appellant was recorded under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and he had examined two witnesses in his defence and produced one document. On the basis of the said evidence, the court below had framed the following points for consideration:-

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant would point out that the Court below had directed confiscation of the excess wealth found to be in the possession of the petitioner. He would point out that the check period that is taken into consideration is spread over 21/2 decades and therefore the presumptions under which the calculations have been made are not indicated. It is unclear as to the value that is attributed to the assets spread over years and in any event, assuming that there is excess wealth disclosed to the extent or Rs.2.27,633.00, if the appellant is in a position to demonstrate that if certain income which was available to the appellant over the years is taken into account and if certain other expenses which were attributed to the appellant is also considered, it is possible for the appellant to demonstrate that there is no such disproportionate wealth as sought to be canvassed by the prosecution. In this regard, he would point out that the appellant has, in his annual returns, from time to time, declared the properties that he had held. This included the main house, the out-house and three other tenements. Insofar as the main house was concerned, it was situated in Tumakuru. The appellant, as a public servant, was posted in several locations all over the State and whenever he was posted in Tumakuru, he would occupy the main house, for otherwise, along with the other houses, it would be let out on rent. This had fetched varying rents over the years. Insofar as the out house was concerned, one Uma Devi, a tenant who has tendered evidence as PW.13, has endorsed that she was indeed the tenant of the house and the rental income that was paid by her over a period of time exceeded Rs.59,000.00. Similarly, the other three tenements had fetched rent over the years in a sum of Rs.25,500.00, Rs.18,600.00 and Rs 14,400.00. In this regard, the witnesses had been examined. And though the statements of the said witnesses had been recorded, they had died before they could adduce evidence before the court. In any event, there was material to disclose that there was rental income available to the appellant over the years. The three houses were purchased out of the 'sthridhana' given to the wife of the appellant though in the name of the appellant. The appellant no doubt had declared the income from the houses in his annual returns from time to time, but the income was spread over a period of more than 21/2 decades. In totality, the rental income was as much as Rs.59,200.00 in the case of the out house and Rs.98,000.00 from the main house and Rs.58,500.00 from three houses. However, there was agricultural land available to the appellant and there was a bore-well that was installed in the said agricultural land. While calculating the expenses of the appellant, the bore well charges has been included, as being incurred by the appellant. However, the land had been tenanted and it was the tenant who had installed the bore well and incurred bore well charges. The appellant's brother-in-law has been examined in this regard to indicate that the bore well charges was in a sum of Rs.40,554.00 and electricity charges in respect of the said bore well also was borne by the tenant which amounted to Rs.27,720.00. Therefore, if the above amounts are taken into consideration, it would be sufficient to demonstrate that there was no excess wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income, which could be attributed to the appellant. The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that these are some of the items, if taken into account, would straight away disclose that there was no disproportionate wealth. However, since the check period was spread over such a long time, it was not possible for the appellant to tender evidence in respect of such other items which also would have been relevant and which would have further disclosed that there was no disproportionate wealth at all. The learned Counsel seeks that the appeal may be allowed.