T.R. KUNJAM Vs. SATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the accused, against whom a Crime has been registered in terms of Section 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the PC Act, 1988'), is entitled to have an "opportunity of hearing" on the explanation stated as submitted before the Investigating Officer in the course of the investigation, before submission of the charge-sheet ? The answer given in the 'negative' by the learned Single Judge is put to challenge in this appeal preferred by the Writ Petitioner.

(2.) The short factual matrix, necessary to have an effective adjudication in the matter is that, the Appellant, who is working as an Executive Engineer in the Office of the Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Bilaspur is facing investigation at the hands of the Respondent-State Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur, who has registered Crime No. 5/2016 under the provisions as aforesaid. It is stated that the Respondent had conducted a raid in the house of the Appellant and his Brother-in-law by name Ramesh Gulati (Appellant's wife's sister's husband) and had seized some incriminating materials. In the course of the search, seizure and investigation conducted by the Respondent, apart from the materials / records seized from the Appellant, a sum of Rs.45,63,900/- was seized from the house of the Appellant's Brother-in-law by name Ramesh Gulati. It is stated that, some jewellery were also seized from the house of the Sister-in-law and Annexure-P/1 inventory was prepared. As put-forth by the Appellant, after conducting the search and seizure, followed by preparation of inventory, the check period was determined by the Respondent as from 01.04.2001 to 16.01.2016. The income during the said period was reckoned as Rs.89,24,173/-, whereas the expenditure was worked out to be Rs.2,78,31,968/-. The Competent Authority also determined the income and expenditure from 23.07.1992 which is the date of joining of the Appellant in service, to 31.03.2001, particulars of which are not much necessary, in so far as the issue involved in this case is concerned.

(3.) The grievance of the Appellant is that, while determining the expenditure of the Appellant during the check period, the Respondent has also included :