S KURMINAIDU Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in C.C.No. 28/89 on the file of Special Judge for A.C.B. cases, Visakhapatnam has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 7th September, 1993 convicting him of the offence under Section 5 (2) r/w 5 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him to two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- and also ordering confiscation of Rs. 27,337, found during the search of the house of the accused on 2-11-1987.

(2.) The appellant who worked as Civil Assistant Surgeon at various places in SrikakulamDistrict from 15-5-71 to 2-11-87 (Checkperiod) was tried for offence under Section 5 (2) r/w 5 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on the allegation that he possessed assets disproportionate to his known source of income to a tune of Rs. 4,92,090/-. The Court found the disproportionate assets in possession of the appellant-accused at Rs. 2,30,670/- convicted and sentenced him as stated above.

(3.) The prosecution estimated the value of the total a ssets at Rs. 6,94,815/-. The income was estimated at Rs. 4,28,700/- during the check period. The expenditure incurred during the period was estimated at Rs. 2,25,975/-. Therefore, the likely savings was arrived at Rs. 2,02,725/-. After deducting the likely savings of Rs. 2,02,725/- from the total assets of Rs. 6,94,815/-, it was alleged that the appellant-accused possessed assets disproportionate to his known source of income to an extent of Rs. 4,92,090/-. In order to establish the charge framed against the accused, the prosecution examined 41 witnesses and marked Exs. P-1 to P-115. The accused examined 11 witnesses and marked Exs. D-1 toD-6. His contention was that at the time of his marriage his wife was presented 25 tulas of gold ornaments and 200 tulas of silver ornaments and cash of Rs.50,000/-.Itwas further contended thathis father also gave 25 tulasof gold to his wife at the time of marriage and that items 1 to 17 of the assets were purchased by his wife during the years 1972 to 1984 with the amount given to her by his father-in-law. The trial Court did not accept this contention and treated the same as having been acquired by the accused in the name of his wife.