NALINIKANTA MUDULI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arise out of the order 24.2.2009 passed by the learned Special Judge, Special Court, Bhubaneswar in T.R. No. 9/52 of 08/04. The three petitioners in both the applications and two others were charge-sheeted for commission of offence under Section 13(1) (b) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also under Section 120 (B), 109 and 201 of the I.P.C. Sri B.N. Muduli, petitioner in Criminal Misc. Case No. 792 of 2009 is the husband of Smt. Sukanti Muduli (petitioner No. 2) in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1109 of 2009. Nalinikanta Muduli, petitioner No. 1 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1109 of 2009 is their son.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that during the check period 1.1.1970 to 20.4.2000, B.N. Muduli was a pubic servant having started his career as a Junior Engineer. It is alleged by the prosecution that the said B.N. Muduli committed criminal misconduct having accumulated assets to the tune of Rs. 4,99,39,949/- in his name and in the names of his family members which is disproportionate to his known sources of income and had diverted a major part of such income in favour of his son N.K. Muduli to run some business concerns such as M/s. Zarina Marines Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Zarina Construction Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Naba Prava Trust. It is further alleged by the prosecution that during the check period, the income of Sri B.N. Muduli was Rs. 12,00,000/- and after deducting the expenditure he should be in possession of assets worth Rs. 3,00,000/- but his assets were valued at Rs. 80,50,615.75 and accordingly assets to the tune of Rs. 77,50,615.75 were found to be disproportionate to his known source of income. The disproportionate assets assessed at Rs. 4,99,39,948.61 include the assets of his son N.K. Muduli.

(3.) B.N. Muduli and his wife Sukanti Muduli filed an application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to be discharged. Their case before the trial Court was that their son N.K. Muduli is a trustee of M/s. Naba Pravat Trust established under the Indian Trust Act and is also the Managing Director of M/s. Zarina Marines Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Zarina Construction Pvt. Ltd. N.K. Muduli is an income tax assessee and therefore, his income from the two Companies as well as the Trust could not be added to the income of B.N. Muduli, his father, to arrive at a figure of Rs. 4,99,39,948.61. The disproportionate assets in the hands of B.N. Muduli as assessed by the Vigilance Department is also not correct in view of the I.T. returns filed by B.N. Muduli for the period 1984-85 to 1999-2000 as well as the I.T. returns filed by his wife Sukanti Muduli for the period 1985-86 to 1999-2000. It was also contended that the valuation of assets made by the Vigilance Department has been exaggerated and actual valuation of the assets would be Rs. 19,00,000/- instead of Rs. 80,50,615.75 as assessed by the Department. N.K. Muduli also filed a similar application and his contention before the trial Court was that as Managing Director of two Companies and trustee of M/s. Naba Pravat Trust he was assessed to income tax independent of his parents. According to N.K. Muduli, the details of the accounts, assets, liabilities and investment etc. made by the two Companies were available with the Registrar of Companies and the income tax authorities but the same have been ignored by the Vigilance Department while calculating the so called disproportionate assets in the hands of his father B.N. Muduli.