D R LEKHERA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been charge-sheeted by Court of Special Judge, Jabalpur, for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the Act). He is a public servant as Asstt. Engineer in Irrigation Deptt. According to the prosecution, investigations were made under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act that he had assets more than his known sources of income. He acquired wealth in his own name and Benami in the name of his wife and other family members. According to the prosecution his known source of income was limited to Rs. 23,07,545/- during the period 1978 to 1989. His wealth was worth Rs. 47,54,741/-. Hence charges were directed to be framed by the impugned order.

(2.) The petitioner challenges this order on the ground that the Court could not take cognizance as there was no sanction by the prescribed authority or by the authority who was competent to remove him from service. The sanction is by Secretary of Law State of M. P. on behalf of State of M. P. It is argued that the Secretary is not competent to remove him although State Govt. was competent to remove him, but the sanction should have been by the Chief Engineer who was competent to remove him or some authority higher to him and the authority of the State Govt. could not be exercised by Secretary of Law Deptt. and could be exercised by Secretary of Irrigation Deptt. It is further urged that the sanction is otherwise also bad as the sanctioning authority did not consider it that the property known as Meera Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. and Maruti Hotel, Jabalpur was owned by an independent body and a juristic person separately assessed to the income tax and its property could not be considered as property of the accused although Meera was the wife of the accused. The third argument is on merits that there is no sufficient material to show on record what were the known sources of income of the petitioner and property belonging to the others is not belonging to the accused and this matter should also be looked into at the charge stage by the trial Court or now by this Court in the revisional jurisdiction.

(3.) It is also argued on behalf of the petitioner that the investigating agency did not ask the petitioner to explain his known sources of income and this is pre-requirement for constituting an offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act. Taking up the last point first, the matter is settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Veera Swami cited at 1991 (3) SCC 655. The Supreme Court said that the satisfactory account about acquisition of the disproportionate assets is to be given by the accused during the trial and there is no requirement of law that he should be required to account for the same during investigation or there should be a pre-charge trial by the investigator. The point need not be discussed further and is, therefore, held without substance.