N P LOTLIKAR Vs. C B I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal, which has been preferred by a Senior Superintendent of Customs, raises certain significant issues with regard to the law relating to corruption trials. Having regard to the fact that the questions were debated with a considerable amount of vigour and that the points canvassed are one of far-reaching consequence to the appellant-accused in this case, and to a large number of similarly situated public servants who are faced with proceedings of this type, it is necessary to deal with those aspects with some amount of elaborateness. The present appellant, who started his career almost half a century back in 1948 under the then Portugese regime, worked with the Customs Department at Bombay from 1954. Sometime towards the end of the year 1985, the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as "the C. B. I. Authorities") raided his house and seized various amounts of jewellery, documents etc. and thereafter continued with the investigations. The appellant, Shri N. P. Lotlikar was at that stage of his career a Superintendent of Customs and was relatively close to retirement.

(2.) AS inevitably happens, the C. B. I. Authorities froze the bank accounts not only of the appellant but of various members of his family. They seized every conceivable asset that they could lay their hands on, which included not only his wife's jewellery but also fixed deposit receipts, investment certificates and the like, and after a rather detailed investigation obtained sanction to prosecute the appellant on a corruption charge. It was alleged against him that on a total computation of all the assets which the prosecution could attribute to him, valued at Rs. 16,11,879. 65 p. that the Authorities had computed a likely saving of Rs. 3,09,220/- and it was, therefore, contended that he was in possession of assets of the aggregate value of Rs. 13,03,651/-, which were disproporationate to his known sources of income and that he was, therefore, liable under S. 5 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. I have deliberately avoided a reference to one crucial aspect of the case, namely, the question as to whether the appellant could satisfactorily account for these assets or not because even though the charge proceeds on the footing that he could not satisfactorily account for them, it was common ground that at no stage of the investigation had he been asked to account for the assets that were found in his possession. The complaint came to be filed and the trial proceeded at which, like in all corruption cases, the prosecution led the evidence of 25 witnesses for purposes of establishing what the earnings of the appellant could have been, what assets he was found in possession of and what, according to the prosecution, constituted the assets which were disproportionate to his know sources of income.

(3.) IT is essential in such cases for the accused to satisfactorily account for what he is found in possession of, in the course of the trial, and this case presents one of the very unusual situations where the accused, for the purposes of discharging that burden, led the evidence of as many as 32 defence witnesses and produced a large number of documents. Thereafter the appellant filed a detailed written statement giving an elaborate account of everything that was required of him starting from the point of time when he joined service in 1948 up to the time when the action was instituted against him. To the written statement, the accused attached several documents, calculations and even computations prepared by his Accountant for purposes of pointing out to the Court that the essence of the charge against him, namely, that the capital and assets which were found in his possession could be accounted for and that the prosecution allegation that these had been acquired through illegal or corrupt channels was not justified. The record of this case is very voluminous. The learned trial Judge has taken the pains to analyse the evidence in some degree of detail. The learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution had established the charge against the accused and the learned trial Judge rejected the defence evidence principally on the ground that it was unreliable and that it was of no consequence. Having held that the appellant had acquired substantial assets through corrupt means, the learned special Judge convicted the appellant for the offence under S. 5 (1) (e) read with S. 5 (2) of the prevention of Corruption Act and awarded a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. It is against this conviction and sentence that the present appeal has been directed.