RAJENDRA JONKO Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellant, an Assistant Collector of Central Excise, for offence punishable under Section 12(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the PC Act, 1988 ) and sentence of RI for 4 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- or in default further imprisonment for 6 months inflicted by the learned Special Judge, Mumbai.

(2.) It was alleged that the appellant had received towards pay and allowances from 15-11-1979 to 12-11-1987 a sum of Rs. 1,40,034.45, interest from Banks amounting to Rs. 57,672.51 and had borrowed Rs. 65,600/- from State Bank of India. He thus had amount of Rs. 2,63,306.96 available to him. His expenses for the period were quantified at Rs. 82,207.04 and thus was likely to have saving to the tune of Rs. 1,81,099.32. But as on 12-11-1987, the appellant was possessed of assets worth Rs. 6,42,882.42/- and thus the assets were disproportionate to the tune of Rs. 4,61,783.10 to his known sources of income. These conclusions were reached upon investigation which commenced on receipt of information by PI Prabhakar Shinde. On completion of investigation, papers were sent to appropriate authority seeking sanction to prosecute the appellant. Upon receipt of sanction, charge-sheet was filed before the Special Court on 5-3-1990 for offence punishable under Section 5(2) r/w Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short, the PC Act, 1947 ) .

(3.) The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge of offence punishable under Section 5(2) r/w Section 5(1)(e) of the PC Act, 1947 on 28-11-1997. Since the appellant pleaded not guilty, he was put on trial at which prosecution examined in all 31 witnesses in its attempt to bring home guilt of the accused. The defence of the accused was that assets standing in the names of his wife Nirmala, sisters Rani and Munni and father were their own asset. He did not know if they had any independent source of income or not. The amounts were given by his father. He had not taken loan of Rs. 65,600/- from State Bank and had not purchased cars or house. He also filed a detailed written statement explaining his assets. After considering the evidence tendered, the learned Special Judge held that even if income as suggested by the appellant was taken into consideration, the assets were disproportionate by Rs. 3,86,570/- to the income of the appellant and therefore convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned earlier. Aggrieved thereby the appellant has preferred this appeal.