M KISHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad dated 16-10-2001.

(2.) The appellant is the accused in C.C. No. 10 of 1996. He was charged for the offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('the Act' for brevity). He worked as a Technical Assistant in A.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited from 13-12-1968 to 27-4-1977 and later joined as an Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector in the Transport Department on 29-4-1977. He was promoted as a Motor Vehicles Inspector on 5-3-1984. He is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act. The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) received information that the appellant acquired huge assets disproportionate to the known sources of income by indulging in corrupt practices. A crime was registered and investigated. A search was conducted over the properties of the appellant and on verification of the relevant records it came to light that the appellant's income from all known legal sources was Rs.7,67,615/- and the expenditure was Rs.4,07,541/- during the check period from 10-12-1968 to 14-7- 1993. It was found that the appellant was in possession of assets to a tune of Rs. 10,32,543/ which is disproportionate to the known sources of his income. The charge-sheet was accordingly laid by the ACB in the Trial Court.

(3.) A charge under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Act was framed, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 21 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.85. The appellant examined D.Ws.1 to 11 and marked Exs.D.1 to D.41. The learned Special Judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties held that the appellant was in possession of assets disproportionate to all known sources of income to an extent of Rs.2,93,975/- and failed to give satisfactory account for the same, therefore, he convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant being aggrieved by the judgment of the Special Judge dated 16-10-2001 preferred this appeal challenging its validity and legality.