LAWS(KAR)-2017-1-289

M. MALAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On January 17, 2017
M. Malaiah Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed in the following background. The appellant was working as Inspector of Excise, Vigilance Squad, Excise Department, Mysore. He is said to have retired from service on 30.4.2001. While he was in service and working in the limits of Mysore District, the Lokayukta Police is said to have received a vigilance report about the appellant having amassed wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income. Simultaneous raids are said to have been conducted on the house, office and other premises of the appellant and his family members, on 14.6.1999, by the Lokayukta Police. During the raid, valuable movable properties and documents are said to have been seized. Detailed lists were drawn of the items so seized. An investigation is said to have followed for the check period 5.8.1970 to 14.6.1999. During the said period, the appellant is said to have worked in several districts of Karnataka. The appellant was found to have acquired several properties in his name as well as in the name of his wife and two sons. The properties acquired by the appellant during the check period was estimated to be worth Rs.26.06 lakh. The expenditure incurred by him, during the said period was estimated at Rs.6.60 lakh. The total value of the assets and expenses was at Rs.32.66 lakh. His total income during the period was shown as Rs.11.75 lakh, from all sources. Hence, it was alleged that he was in possession of assets worth Rs.20.91 lakh in excess of his known sources of income. Or about 177.96% in excess of his income. It is on the above allegation that a case was registered against the appellant and has culminated in the conviction of the appellant, for an offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (Hereinafter referred to as the 'PC Act', for brevity). It is that which is under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) Shri A.H. Bhagvan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend as follows. That the appellant had died during the pendency of this appeal, as on 17.12.2015. However, by an Order dated 1.4.2016, this court has permitted the appellant's widow to continue with the appeal. That the accused has been found guilty on the basis of the assets that are found listed in the three Mahazars that were drawn at the time of the search and seizure conducted on 14-6-1999, namely , the Mahazars marked as Exhibits P-5, P-8 and P-9.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, Shri Venkatesh Arabatti seeks to justify the judgment of the court below and would point out that the appellant has started his career when he was of humble means and the subsequent acquisition are apparently sought to be held in the names of dear ones, which is adequately established by the prosecution and hence the burden was on the accused to demonstrate otherwise - which he had failed to do.