STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. KEDARNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal, at the instant of Appellant - State, arises out of judgment and order dtd. 15/1/2010 passed by learned Special Court, Jalna in Special Case No. 06/2007 acquitting present Respondent from charges under Sec. 13(1)(e) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Sec. 109 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sec. 13(1)(e) and Sec. 13(2) of the Act.

(2.) In short, case of prosecution in trial Court was that, accused, who was working as supervisor in Agriculture Department, during check period from 8/8/1984 to October, 2004, amassed disproportionate property from his known source of income. It was specific case that, known source of accused from salary, agricultural income, rent income was to the tune of Rs.27,36,825.00. That, he had disclosed expenses to the tune of Rs.14,02,252.00. That, he had acquired property worth Rs.48,89,632.00 and, therefore, the disproportionate property acquired by him was to the tune of Rs.35,55,159.00 for which he could not give proper explanation. It is the further case of prosecution that, accused no. 2 wife and accused no.3 son of accused no.1 had abetted the above offence and, therefore, after investigation, all three were charge-sheeted and tried by learned Special Judge for above offences. During trial, prosecution adduced evidence of in all 19 witnesses and also rested its case on various panchnama and documentary evidence. On appreciation of the same, leaned Trial Judge held that, prosecution failed to established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and by above order, acquitted all three accused, precisely which is assailed in this Appeal by the State.

(3.) Learned APP would point out that, Respondent - original Accused No.1 was an agriculture supervisor. He pointed out that, complaint was received against him for amassing property from ill gotten source. That, on receipt of such complaint, discrete inquiry was said to be conducted, which indeed revealed that, during the period from 8/8/1984 to October, 2004, the salary income of accused no. 1 was Rs.9,77,738.00 p.a. That, it was revealed that, he had withdrawn GPF to the tune of Rs.3,15,800.00 and borrowed housing loan, car loan from various banks. That, he had also maintained fixed deposits and drawn policies. That, total income of Respondent accused from known source was shown to the extent of Rs.27,36,825.00. That, he had shown expenses to the extent of Rs.14,02,252.00 but he had acquired properties worth Rs.48,89,000.00 and, therefore, it is his submission that, calculations revealed that, on deducting expenditures incurred by accused to the tune of Rs.14,02,252.00 from Rs.27,36,825.00, the leftover to the tune of Rs.13,34,573.00 was deducted from his property income i.e. Rs.48,89,732.00 and, therefore, disproportionate property was worth Rs.35,55,159.00. That, Respondent accused failed to provide account for the sources of above acquisitions. He would further submit that, his wife and son had abetted him in above act and, therefore, they are also charge-sheeted.