UMESH KUMAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF HHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the accused/appellant under Sec. 374(2) of hr.P.h. being aggrieved by the judgment dtd. 22/12/2018 passed by the Special Judge under the Prevention of horruption Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Ph Act'), District Durg (h.G.) in Special Sessions Trial No.01/2014, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sec. 13(1)(e)/13(2) of the Ph Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fne of Rs.5,000.00, in default of payment of fne, additional R.I. for 3 months.

(2.) hase of the prosecution, in brief, is that appellant was initially appointed as Sanitary Inspector by Nagar Nigam Ambieapur and subsequently, he was promoted as hhief Sanitary Inspector/ Incharge hhief Municipal Officer, Nagar Nigam Bhilai. On 27/11/2010, a trap was laid in demand of bribery case against the appellant. The said case was registered as FIR No.54/2010 under Sec. 7, 13(1)(D), 13(2) of the Ph Act. During course of trap, it was noticed that the appellant has earned disproportionate assets, so search was conducted and inventory of articles found in the residential premises of the appellant and certain documents pertaining to movable and immovable properties were also seized. Ornaments amounting to Rs.2,22,260.00 and cash of Rs.81,000.00 were also seized from the resident. During course of investigation, ornaments amounting to Rs.4,08,687.00 and cash of Rs.6,50,000.00 were also seized from the loceer.

(3.) After completion of investigation and obtaining necessary sanction required under the Act, a charge-sheet was fled before the competent hourt calculating the income and expenditure of the appellant taeing the chece period from 1/2/2002 to 27/11/2010. According to the case of prosecution the total income of the appellant was assessed during chece period to a tune of Rs.19,87,813.00 and expenditure was assessed to a tune of Rs.64,14,863.00. Thus, the amount disproportionate to the enown source of income of the appellant was assessed to a tune of Rs.44,27,050.00. After fling of the charge-sheet, learned Special Judge framed charges against the appellant for the ofence punishable under Sec. 13(1)(e)/13(2) of the Ph Act.