(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr. A. D. Shah for the petitioner and learned public prosecutor Mr. Mitesh Amin with learned APP Mr. Manan Mehta for respondent State. Perused the record.
(2.) Petitioner herein is facing charges under Section 13(1) (e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Charges against the petitioner is to the effect that while serving in Gujarat Police on different posts, during the period between 2005 and 2011, he has acquired disproportionate income to the tune of Rs.51, 34, 428/-. Therefore, complaint was filed against him on 31.03.2013 and after investigation he has been charge-sheeted. However, it is the case of the petitioner that he has been unnecessarily targeted because of some or the other reasons and that he has disclosed his accounts and calculations so as to prove that properties purchased by him is based upon his income and other source of funds by legal means at his end and there is no disproportionate assets. Therefore, petitioner has preferred an application at exhibit 11 before the Special Judge, Anand in Special Case No.1 of 2015 registered against him for above offences, to drop the proceedings and the charges levelled against him. Such application at exhibit 11 has been rejected by impugned order dated 13.04.2016, which is under challenge in this revision.
(3.) The sum and substance of the petitioner's application and this revision petition is to the effect that during investigation, the investigating officer has failed to consider his further written statement dated 108.2014 and that though he has obtained permission for visiting Australia so also for purchasing movable and immovable properties and that he has furnished details of sale of his house for purchasing new properties, and thereby when he has informed the department on each occasion of his investment and purchase and furnished details, unfortunately, the investigating agency has failed to consider his reply and explanation and even sanction granted by the department for specific transactions while filing of charge sheet. It is further submitted that there is error in calculation of disproportionate asset and that though his clear income is Rs.82, 67, 140/- the investigating agency has considered it as Rs.1, 15, 35, 319/- and thus considered disproportionate income of Rs.32, 68, 258/-. However, it is disclosed that disproportionate income is Rs.51, 34, 428/-. It is further contended that charge sheet papers do not reveal any circumstance or documentary evidence to reach to the conclusion that disproportionate income is Rs.32, 68, 258/-. It is further contended that statement of witnesses are not much material in such case, whereas department has failed to consider different source of income vize. (1) Salary income, (2) agricultural income (3) Professional income of wife, (4) Interest income of investment, (5) Rental income, (6) Loan amount obtained, (7) amount received from son Yuvraj, (8) Rental income of the shop, (9) Amount received from parents (10) amount received from friends against promissory note and through bank accounts. It is therefore, submitted that petitioner has already disclosed the source of income to the tune of Rs.1, 13, 14, 986/- and expenditure or Rs.97, 17, 096/- which reveals that there is only liability of Rs.15, 97, 917/- due to debt. However, investigating agency has not taken into consideration the amount which is obtained under loans and which is taken from the friends and family members which is duly supported by the documentary evidence. Therefore, it is submitted that when calculation are properly provided and when there is no evidence to show that such accounts are neglected or fails to prove that even granting sanction by the sanctioning authority is without application of mind and when charge sheet does not disclose the commission of offence as narrated by the investigating agency, petitioner needs to be discharged.