R VITHALESHWAR RAO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal is preferred by the accused against the judgment dated 4. 4. 2001 in C. C. No. 82 of 1996 on the file of the Special Judge for c. B. I Cases, Hyderabad, whereby the learned Judge convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the P. C act') and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. He was also convicted for the offence under Section 168 ipc and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. The accused was directed to undergo both the sentences concurrently.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the Inspector of Police, CBI, after conducting a thorough check during the period from 1. 1. 1974 to 2. 7. 1992 found that the accused was in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to a tune of Rs. 6,02,212. 96. On verification, he was found in possession of assets to a tune of Rs. 9,53,922. 96/- against his likely savings of Rs. 3,51,710/- and he could not explain the balance of Rs. 6,02,212. 96, which was found after verification of all the records. After completion of the investigation, the Inspector of Police laid charge-sheet. The accused pleaded not guilty of the charge. Therefore, the prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 31 and got marked Exs. P1 to P59. On the defence side, D. Ws. 1 to 14 and Exs. 1 to 18 were marked. After completion of the trial, the trial Court came to a conclusion that the prosecution proved the gilt of the accused for the charged offences beyond reasonable doubt by holding that the accused possessed properties worth -Rs. 3,63,863. 28 disproportionate to the known sources of income, and convicted and sentenced him as aforementioned.

(3.) THE accused preferred the present appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Special Judge by contending that the Hon'ble Judge failed to take into consideration, the additional income by way of sale of gold and silver articles, the income from family trade, income from tuitions conducted by his sons and income from autorickshaws.