STATE OF U P Vs. SHREE KRISHNA CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal u/s 378(3) Cr.P.C. has been proposed by State of U.P. with a prayer for grant of leave to appeal against judgment of acquittal passed by Court of Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Court No. 2, Varanasi, in S.S.T. No. 7 of 2001, State Vs. Sri Krishna Chandra, under section 13(2) read with 13(1) (E) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by U.P. Vigilance Organization, District Allahabad.

(2.) Learned AGA argued that the learned Trial Judge failed to appreciate facts and law placed before it. On the application of Pradeep Srivastava, Vice Chairman, U.P. Youth Congress (I) to Governor of U.P. an order for enquiry about disproportionate wealth of Sri Krishna Chandra, Dy. Excise Commissioner, Kanpur, was passed and after enquiry accusation was held to be substantiated, which resulted registration of above case under above sections and filing of charge sheet. Cognizance over it was taken and trial was held, wherein evidence was produced on record, but the trial court failed to appreciate facts and law placed before it, thereby passed impugned judgment of acquittal. Hence this application with above prayer.

(3.) Perusal of judgment reveals that statement of Krishna Chandra was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. in which specific contention was that owing to enmity, this false complaint was filed and it was enquired. But the enquiry was not a correct one. The earning by salary was not properly calculated. Many heads of earning by him was not taken into consideration. Whereas earning of family having independent business was not assessed properly. Earnings of Smt. Manju Chandra, as were given in exhibit Kha 1 to Kha 10, were not properly appreciated. Accused was of no concern with Subhash Chandra. His wife Manju Chandra had purchased properties, detailed in para 92 of the judgment, by her own independent earnings, which included purchase of Rifle etc. These were of her own separate business and earnings. Those documents were submitted before the enquiry officer, but the same were not taken into consideration. Manju Chandra Gas Service, Allahabad, was under proprietorship of Manju Chandra. This earning is in the names of Prateek Chandra and Nisha Chandra. Accounts of that Gas Agency was not taken into consideration, though details of same were submitted before the Government. Accused had examined Manju Chandra as DW1 and himself as DW2. Documentary evidence including Income Tax Return of Smt. Manju Chandra right from 1982 to 1996 as well as of Manju Chandra Gas Service Exhibits Kha 1 to Kha 10 were submitted. Trial court has appreciated those facts. Upon enquiry got conducted under direction of State of U.P. and report filed thereby, which was of State itself and was proved before the Court, were of those fact that earning of Manju Chandra was Rs. 12,59,008/- and expenses were Rs.10,83,936/- i.e. property held within the earning. Moreso, as per law laid down by Apex Court in Krishnand Rao Vs. State of M. P., 1977 AIR(SC) 796, if the value of property held is not 10% in excess than the known source of income then that will not be deemed to be inappropriate or disproportionate property. After analyzing this aspect, the judgment of acquittal has been passed, which is based on the basis of evidence on record.