M SREERAMULU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Court of Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Nellore dated 16-10-1996 in C.C. No. 3 of 1992. The trial Court through its judgment under appeal had convicted the appellant for an offence under S. 5(i)(e) read with S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 40,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year.

(2.) The petitioner was employed as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector initially in the year 1960 and thereafter, he was promoted as Motor Vehicle Inspector on 28-1-1972. On suspicion that the assets of the petitioner are disproportionate to his known sources of income, the prosecution had undertaken evaluation of the assets held by him and his known sources of income from 1-1-1971 to 26-10-1983. On such evaluation it came to the conclusion that the income of the accused during the check period through various known sources, such as salary for the post held by him, agriculture, his rents, insurance, was Rs. 7,98,213/-. It had taken into account seven items of expenditure and found that the net expenditure during the check period was Rs. 4,84,686/-. The assets held by the appellant during the check period were assessed at Rs. 8,78,409/-. On the basis of these figures, the prosecution took the view that the appellant held assets in excess of his known sources of income to an extent of Rs. 5,43,000/-. A charge was framed on the basis of these allegations. The prosecution examined by P.W. 1 to P.W. 51 and marked Exs. P1 to P171. The appellant examined D.W. to D.W. 9 and marked documents Exs. D1 to D20. Ex. X1 was also marked. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence the trial Court found the accused guilty of the offence. It had convicted and sentenced as indicated above.

(3.) Sri T. Bali Reddy, learned senior counsel appeared for the appellant submits that the prosecution had included several items of assets, which in fact do not belong to the appellant. According to him, item Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 12 do not belong to the appellant at all and the prosecution has placed nothing before the Court to show that the appellant had any concern with the said assets much less, ownership. According to the learned counsel, if the said items are excluded from the assets of the appellant it cannot be said that the appellant holds any assets or properties in excess of his known sources of income. The learned standing counsel for the ACB Sri G. Pedda Babu on the other hand, submits that the prosecution has placed ample evidence before the trial Court in support of its plea that the said items were held benami by the appellant. It is also his case that the prosecution had adopted on objective approach inasmuch as it had taken into account the income from the said items of properties also.