V.JOSEPH ALBERT PINHEIRO Vs. SUPDT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A former Superintendent of Customs, Kochi faced trial in CC No.8/1993 before the Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-I, Ernakulam for offences punishable under sections 13(1) (e) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988.

(2.) The appellant herein, who was the Former Superintendent of Customs House Cochin and Air Customs, Trivandrum, was a public servant under the PC Act . Allegation of the prosecution was that, during the check period between 1/6/1983 to 25/6/1990, the appellant acquired and was in possession of properties in his name and in the name of his family members, to the extent of Rs.18,12,319.39/- which was disproportionate to the known source of his income and that of his family members. Appellant could not satisfactorily account for it and thereby he committed offence punishable under section 13 (1)(e) read with section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act . It was alleged His wife was a teacher in a school and had six children. The prosecution alleged that, he had in his possession either in his name or in the name of the members of his family as on 1/6/1983 , movables and immovables assets worth Rs.77,283.95 as detailed in Statement-A attached to charge sheet. He was in possession as on June 25, 1990 movable and immovable assets to the value of Rs.17,88,465.02 as described in statement-B. Considering his income of Rs.6,25,153/- during the check period from his all known sources as furnished in Statement-C and expenditure of Rs.7,26,291.32 incurred by him during the check period as described in Statement-D, he could not have any savings. Thus, on June 25,1990 he was having assets/pecuniary resources to the tune of Rs.18,12,319.90 which was disproportionate to his known sources of income which he could not satisfactorily account.

(3.) Accused pleaded not guilty before trial court and hence prosecution adduced its evidence. On the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW77 were examined and Exts.P1 to P345 were marked. Mos 1 to 3 were identified. Ext.C1 was marked as court exhibits. On the side of the accused, DW1 was examined and Exts.D1 And D2 were marked.