STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. AJIT SITARAM NAIK-SATAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal impugning an order and judgment dated 18-1-2003 passed by the Special Judge, Thane, acquitting respondents (accused) of charges under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (P.C. Act, 1988) and Section 109 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The accused are alleged to have accumulated assets disproportionate to their known sources of income during the period of their service. Accused No.1 was working as Inspector in Mumbai Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Mumbai (APMC). Accused No.2, who is his wife, used to work as Accountant /Clerk in Indian Education Society, Mumbai, even prior to their marriage, which took place in the year 1985-86. Family background of accused No.1 is given in the impugned judgment that his father used to work in Central Railway. Accused No.1 had three brothers and one sister, who all were independently settled in their life.

(3.) Application was received from one Narayan V. Jadhav addressed to the Executive Director, Cidco, Belapur, Navi Mumbai, with a copy to Income Tax and CBI, alleging that accused No.1 has illegally acquired property and seeking an inquiry into the acquisition. It is alleged that the inquiry was made by the Inspector of ACB, Thane, pursuant to an order passed by the Director, ACB, Mumbai and according to the ACB Thane, the total assets that accused nos.1 and 2 had, both moveables and immoveables, was valued at about Rs.16,67,919.04. During the inquiry, it came to light that income by way of salary received by accused No.1 from 1- 4-1977 to 12-12-1997 and the income by way of salary received by accused No.2 from March 1994 to November 1997 was totaling to Rs.11,62.053.90. It is not clear why the salary received by accused No.2 was restricted to March 1994 to November 1997, when accused No.2 has been employed from 1985-86. The expenses calculated as per the rules for the period 1-4- 1977 to 12-12-1997 was coming to Rs.3,51,364.30. Therefore, after deduction of expenses, the assets, which were expected to remain with accused nos.1 and 2, was Rs.8,10,689.60. But the assets found was worth Rs.16,67,919.04. Therefore, the allegation is the accused was in possession of assets of Rs.8,57,229.44, in excess of known source of income. The accused are unable to give any explanation and, therefore, are guilty of the offences charged.