SRI. M.N.ESHWAR Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts leading up to this appeal are stated to be as follows. Appellant no.1 is said to be the husband of appellant no.2. It was alleged that appellant no.1, while working as a Section Engineer/Permanent Way Inspector, with the South- Western Railways had amassed wealth, valued at Rs.11.85 lakh, which was far in excess of his known sources of income as a public servant. And that to conceal the same, appellant no.2 had abetted the crime in allowing the wealth to be acquired in her name. It was thus alleged that the appellants had committed offences punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'PC Act', for brevity) read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (Hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity). Proceedings having been initiated against the appellants, they had contested the matter and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution had tendered the evidence of 44 witnesses and had exhibited 129 documents. The appellants, in turn, are said to have examined six witnesses and are said to have got marked about 10 documents. The trial court having found that the appellants were guilty, atleast to the extent that the assets disclosed were about 28.31% in excess of the known sources of income, convicted the accused. It is that judgment which is under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) The learned Senior Advocate, Shri C.V.Nagesh, appearing on behalf of the counsel for the appellants, would contend, that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside on the following grounds, namely :

(3.) On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent seeks to justify the judgment of the trial court, and would contend that the grounds raised were the very contentions raised in defence and it was incorrect to urge that the trial court had committed any error.