PERMANAND JHA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED is challenging the order of Special Judge, Jabalpur dated 1-10-1996 in Special Case No. 12/95 directing framing of charge for offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (e) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the accused. He was a public servant allegedly found in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The charge was that the accused in capacity as Junior Engineer in the Irrigation Division since 2-1-1986 and thereafter worked at various places at various posts and he was working as Superintending Engineer in Upper Narmada Zone, Jabalpur when the first information report was lodged against him that he had acquired pecuniary resources and property in his own name and in the name of his wife and his son beyond his known sources of income and as such committed criminal mis-conduct punishable under Section 13 (1) (e) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in so far as he and his wife Smt. Manjari Jha and his son Shri Manish Jha (both on his behalf) had been in possession of pecuniary resources of the property disproportionate to the extent of Rs. 9,81,792/-, to his known sources of income.

(2.) FACTUAL matrix is that the house of this accused was searched under warrant of search under this provisions, on 27-8-1992. His wife and son were residing with him. In reaching the extent of disproportion of this pecuniary resources and assets, it was presumed in favour of the accused that he received 12. 01 acres of land in partition of family agriculture land in the year 1986 and it must have created some earnings, as also there was income from sale of some plots of land so acquired. All these were counted as known sources of income. Since his family members were also residing with him, adjustments to the extent of Rs. 1,84,038/- were given for their earnings.

(3.) THE contention of the accused mainly is that had he been given notice he would have explained and accounted for all the assets in his name, in the name of his wife and son. He was not given any notice by the investigating officer after investigation to explain his known sources of income and to explain the disproposition of his existing pecuniary resources and property. The argument was that in the absence of this notice the necessary ingredients of offence under Section 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 remains missing. The learned Special Judge did not accept this contention in view of the existing interpretation of the provisions given by the Supreme Court.