STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SANTOSHKUMAR AVTARKRUSHNA KAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State hereby questions the judgment and order of acquittal passed on 10/6/2005 in Special Case No. 59 of 1996 by which present respondents, husband and wife, were tried for commission of offence under Ss. 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [PC Act[ and Sec. 109 of IPC respectively.

(2.) On report of PW 61 Prakash Rade, crime was registered against present respondent no.1 Santoshkumar Kaul, who at the relevant point of time was officiating as Deputy Engineer at Medium Project, Nandgaon, District Nashik. It is the case of prosecution that between the check period from 1/11/1969 to 19/7/1994, accused had possessed properties worth Rs.23,52,796.93 from all known sources. Expenditure incurred by accused was found to be to the tune of Rs.15,16,796.00. The properties comprised of both, movable and immovable. Inquiry revealed that, total savings of accused persons was to the tune of Rs.8,35,978.00, but total disproportionate assets standing in their name were to the tune of Rs.6,75,336.00, of which there was no satisfactory explanation. It is the specific case of prosecution that accused no.2-wife had abetted accused no.1 in amassing the disproportionate assets and therefore they were charge- sheeted for commission of offence under Sec. 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of PC Act and Sec. 109 of IPC respectively. Both were made to face trial and on its conclusion, came to be acquitted by above judgment which is now taken exception to by the prosecution by way of instant appeal.

(3.) Learned APP would point out that, admittedly accused no.1 was Deputy Engineer at relevant time. Accused no.2 is his wife. that, on secret information PW 61 conducted discreet inquiry and noted above disproportionate assets standing in their names, regarding acquisition of which they could not give satisfactory explanation. He pointed out that, prosecution had taken pains to examine as many as 61 witnesses comprising of officials from Pay Allowance Department, Bank officials and as such the witnesses were categorized and classified into seven sets. He pointed out that, prosecution had a full proof case in the form of above voluminous evidence, but the same has been incorrectly appreciated and moreover, acquittal is granted on petty counts like no explanation being sought from accused and sanctioning authority not being examined.