REPUBLIC OF INDIA Vs. RAMAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both prosecution and accused being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment have preferred these two appeals. Accused is aggrieved by his conviction and sentence under S. 5(1) (e) read with S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') imposing sentence of two years' R.I. and fine of Rs. 20,000 / - in default to undergo six months R.I. Prosecution is aggrieved that S. 5(3-B) of the Act has not been kept in mind while imposing fine of Rs. 20,000/- only. These two appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) In March, 1974, gettinting information that accused who was an Income-tax Officer has assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, Central Bureau of Investigation registered a case and started investigation. It came to find that during his service career accused has invested huge amounts and acquired assets in his own name and names of his family members which are such more than his known sources of income. Accordingly, charge-sheet was filed against accused to face trial, for having committed offence under S. 5(1)(a) of the Act.

(3.) Short case of prosecution is that accused was a member of a joint family. His grandfather Achhabar Singh a resident of village Malwa in Gaya district of Bihar was an agriculturist having only 32.51 acres of land in the year 1918. Achhabar had four sons; Bhajan, Maharaja, Rajabali and Jadunanda. Maharaja was only married and accused is his son. Other three brothers of Maharaja remained unmarried. Maharaja died in the year 1935. Between 1918 and 1936, family added ony 8 acres 51 decimals of land to the joint family assets. On account of economic position of the family, accused spent his High School days in house of his sister's husband and prosecuted his College education staying as a tutor of children in the residence of a Magistrate. No property was acquired during the period 1936 and 1944 when accused became a Graduate. Accused joined service as Lower Division Clerk in Income-tax Department, on 3-8-1945. From that year properties were acquired, development to ancestral building was made, deposits were made in Post Offices and Banks in spite of increase in family by birth of sons and daughter to accused who were educated, and got married. Prosecution found that between 3-8-1945 and 26-6-1974 income of the family from all sources which included salary of accused and his son, interest on deposits in Banks and Post Offices, dowry received by sons during their marriages, agricultural income and refund of income-tax came to Rs. 2,33,440/-. Expenditure of the family during the entire period was Rs.3,17,782 Value of the assets and investments was Rs. 4,04,856/ -. Taking the assets and expenditure together it was found that total assets of accused disproportionate to the income was Rs. 4,89,198/- as on 26-6-1974.