CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESYGATION Vs. ANIL JAISUKHLAL JOGINDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD. THE appellant challenges the judgment and order dated 29th of August, 1907 passed by the learned Special Judge for Greater bombay, in Special Case No. 21/1988 (RC. 57/1986 ). By the impugned judgment and order the respondent has been acquitted of the offence punishable under section 5 (2) r/ w 5 (i), (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter called as the said Act), while giving benefit of doubt to the respondent.

(2.) THE respondent was charged for the offence punishable under the above quoted sections of the said Act for having found in possession of moveable and immovable property to the extent of Rs. 6,89,926/- disproportionate to his known source of income and for which he could not satisfactorily account for while he was in employment of Dena Bank, a Nationalised Bank as the Regional Manager thereof during the period between 1961 to June, 1986. It was the case of the respondent whether the amounts or assets were obtained out of the amount accumulated from the savings of the accused and his family members. The prosecution examined six witnesses. P. W. 1 Harijindersingh Mohansingh Babrah, a retired Works Manager from Indoswept Pvt. Ltd. , P. W. 2 Sudamrao Tukaram Kale, employee from the Collectors Office, a panch to the panchanama dated 25th July, 1986, p. W. 3 Sadanand Tukaram Padte, Central excise Inspector, as panch to panchanama dated 25th July, 1986, P. W. 4 S. Doreswamy, General Manager of Dena Bank to establish the sanction order, P. W. 5 ramesh Chandappa Amte, Postal Assistant, Pune City Post Office, as panch to panchanama dated 26th July, 1986 and p. W. 6 Prabhakar Baburao Shinde, Inspector, CBI, Investigating Officer. The prosecution has also produced large number of documents. The defence on its part, apart from submitting written statement along with documents, examined DW 1 Hansa jahagirdar, wife of accused and DW 2 Bina mehta, daughter of the accused in support of his defence.

(3.) THE impugned judgment is sought to be challenged on the various grounds, including that the findings arrived at by the learned Special Judge are not borne out from the evidence on record and that the trial Court erred in taking note of the documents which were neither proved nor produced in evidence by following procedure under law. It was also sought to be contended that the claim of the respondent that the amount for the purpose of acquisition of assets was generated through the income of his wife and daughter was accepted by the trial Court without there being any supportive documentary or cogent oral evidence in that regard. It is also submitted on behalf of the appellant that once the prosecution had disclosed assets with the accused disproportionate to the known source of income, the burden was upon the accused to furnish satisfactory explanation for such assets and to establish that the accused did not possess the wealth beyond disproportionate to the known source of his income.