RAMESH CHANDER ABBI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is challenging the Judgment and Order passed by the Special Judge, Greater Bombay in Special Case No.23 of 1978. By the said Judgment and Order dated 23rd Oct., 1990, the Special Judge convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sec. 5(1)(e) read with Sec. 5(2) for the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for four months and also imposed fine of Rs. 5,000.00 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for one month. An undertaking of accused is also recorded that he would deposit the sum of Rs. 34,466.95 within 90 days from the date of the Judgment which was the amount found to be in excess of the legitimate income of the accused. The prosecution case in brief is as under:-

(2.) The appellant initially was working in a private firm Bombay Dying and Manufacturing Company Limited from 21.4.64 to 10.2.65. Thereafter, the appellant joined the Textile Corporation of India and was posted at Ahmedabad, Bombay and Coimbatore. The family of the accused consisted of his wife, one son and daughter and his total income during the check period was Rs. 1,04,151.18. According to the prosecution, the value of the assets held by the accused was Rs. 1,93,751.52ps. and his total expenditure during the check period was found to be Rs. 97,692.03 and the expected sealing was to the tune of Rs. 6,459.15 and therefore, the accused hold assets which were disproportionate to the known sources of income to the extent of Rs. 1,87,292.37. The defence of the accused was that his wife also had substantial source of income and many of the assets were explained satisfactorily in view of the income of his wife and therefore, there was no substance in the case of the prosecution. The accused also challenged the veracity of the evidence regarding his income, expenditure and assets. The prosecution examined 46 witnesses and also brought on record number of documents and exhibits. The accused also examined 9 witnesses and brought on record number of documents. The trial Court held that the sanction which was accorded was proper and valid and further held that an amount of Rs. 34,466/- was found to be disproportionate to the known sources of income. The trial Court further did not accept the contention of the accused that the trial had been vitiated on account of the investigation being carried out by an officer who was below the rank of Superintendent of Police. The trial Court further held that the accused was a public servant in view of Sec. 16 of the Textile Corporation Act. The trial Court further proceeded to analyse the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and took into consideration the individual items and either accepted or discarded the evidence by giving its own reasons.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State at length. They have taken me through the Judgment and Order of the trial Court as also to voluminous oral evidence as also the documentary evidence which is brought on record by the prosecution as also the defence. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the trial Court had not taken into consideration evidence of certain key witnesses which were examined by the prosecution and had discarded the admissions which were given by the witnesses which satisfactorily explained the various amounts and assets which were in the name of the appellant and his family. He submitted that the trial Court had erred in discarding this evidence particularly when this evidence had been brought on record by the prosecution and more particularly when part of their evidence which was in support of the prosecution had been accepted while part of the evidence which was in favour of the accused had been discarded by the trial Court. He submitted that therefore even without going through the evidence which was adduced by the defence even if the evidence of these witnesses which were examined by the prosecution had been properly assessed, in that case the trial Court need not have come to the conclusion that the accused had assets of Rs. 34,000.00 in excess of his own sources of income. He further submitted that the prosecution itself was vitiated as the investigation has been carried out by a person below the rank of Superintendent of Police as envisaged under Sec. 5(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and as such the entire investigation has been vitiated and as a result, the accused was liable to be acquitted. He submitted that there was no documental record to indicate that the Investigating Officer had the necessary power to investigate this offence. He submitted that the salutary purpose for incorporating the said condition with respect to offences which are punishable under Sec. 5(1)(e) read with 5(2) and of imposing aforesaid condition was to ensure that an officer who is below that rank is not given discretion to investigate against the high ranking officers. He submitted that the trial Court had clearly erred on relying on a copy of a letter which did not bear the authentic signature of the competent authority authorising the Investigating Officer from conducting the investigation. He invited my attention to the relevant documentary evidence in the finding of the trial Court order.