SUJATA NANDA @ BOXI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA (GA)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department. Perused the case diary.

(2.) Order dated 27.06.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge (V), Jeypore in G.R. Case No. 18 of 2009 (v) rejecting the petitioner's application for discharging her from the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 109 of the I.P.C., has been assailed in this criminal revision.

(3.) In the aforesaid G.R. Case the petitioner and her husband have been arrayed as accused persons. The petitioner's husband was the Assistant Civil Supplies Officer, who is a Government Servant whereas the petitioner is a housewife. Her husband is facing trial under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (e) of the P.C. Act for the check period from 06.03.1986 to 20.01.2009 and the petitioner has been implicated as an abettor. The disproportionate assets alleged to have been acquired by the petitioner's husband is Rs. 12,42,423/-. The assets represent immovable and movable properties, out of which at least 5 immovable properties have been acquired by way of purchase at different points of time indifferent places in the name of the present petitioner. The case diary reveals that on verification of Income Tax Returns received from the Income Tax Officer, Jeypore it was seen that the petitioner filed I.T. Return showing her income from knitting, tuition and part time job as a Computer Operator for the Financial Years, 2005-06 to 2007-08. However, neither the petitioner nor her husband could be able to show a single document or paper with regard to knitting business or tuition or part-time job of the petitioner as Computer Operator. During house search, no document/paper or machinery was found with regard to any knitting or part time job of the petitioner. The accused-petitioner also failed to say whom she was providing coaching/tuition and the name of the agency where she was doing part time job as Computer Operator. On the other hand, in the sale deeds of 1994, 2000 and 2006 executed in favour of the petitioner under which she has acquired immovable properties by way of purchase, the petitioner has been described as a housewife. On investigation, it has been found that the petitioner has no independent source of income of her own and she has allowed her husband to acquire properties in her name at different points of time.