RAMESHWAR DAYAL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is preferred by the appellant - original accused (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19th October, 2005, passed by the learned Special Judge, in Special Case No. 21/2002, whereby at the end of trial, the appellant came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was asked to undergo sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence proved and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/ -; and in default to make payment of fine, he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to filing of the present appeal in nutshell are as under: On 22nd December 1971, the appellant joined Government service on the post of Agriculture Assistant in the department of State of Madhya Pradesh. During the year from 1985 to 1990, he was promoted as Sub Divisional Officer and posted in Kailaras, district Shivpuri and then from 1990 to 1993 as Assistant Land Conservative Officer and posted in Isagarh, district Guna. Subsequently, he was posted at Gwalior. It is stated that thereafter the appellant worked at different places holding the post of Public Servant. During the period he served as Public Servant, it was alleged that the appellant acquired the assets disproportionate to known sources of his income for which he had no plausible explanation. On receiving such complaint against him, the enquiry was conducted and thereafter, F.I.R. was lodged and crime was registered. On completion of the investigation and obtaining necessary sanction, a charge - sheet came to be filed by the police against the present appellant in the Special Court for the aforesaid charges punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the aforesaid charges and, therefore, the prosecution led the evidence to establish the case against the appellant. After recording of oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge has recorded the findings of conclusion that in check period from 1st January 1984 to 2nd September 1997 when the accused was posted as Sub Divisional Agricultural Officer at Kailaras, district Shivpuri and subsequently as Assistant Land Conservative Officer, Gwalior, he by all known valid sources earned Rs.11,07,510/ - and on evidence the expenditure, investment and movable and immovable properties were found worth Rs.23,17,930/ -. Thus, the appellant was found to have acquired disproportionate assets from his known sources of income which is worked out to Rs.2,82,423/ - for which he could not satisfactorily account for. After finding so, the learned trial Judge came to the aforesaid conclusion of guilt, against which the present appeal is directed.

(3.) AS against that learned Special Public Prosecutor, supporting the conclusion as to the conviction of the appellant by the trial Court, submitted that there is nothing in the evidence of the prosecution to disbelieve it.According to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt the alleged charges against the accused that being a Public Servant, he earned by all known sources Rs. 11,07,510/ - in check period from 1st January 1984 to 2nd September 1997 during which he acquired the immovable properties like agriculture lands, residential houses and movables like cash, gold, furniture, vehicles, household properties etc. He also spent money in education and marriages of the children. Thus, the total expenditure as proved on the basis of cogent evidence adduced by the accused is Rs. 23,17,930/ - but the total expenditure with total assets of the accused as he acquired during the check period has exceeded the sum for which the accused had no plausible explanation. It is submitted that though the appellant attempted to pose himself as honest, bright and strict officer, but in view of the natural evidence led by the prosecution, such explanation should not be treated as reasonable or probable explanation which can be said to be sufficient for the purposes of rebuttal of the presumption raised under Section 20 of the Act. Learned counsel submitted that this rebutting of presumption if is considered in the totality of the evidence the conduct of the appellant, the appeal must fail and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence should be upheld. Accordingly, it is prayed that by confirming the judgment, the appeal may be dismissed.