NARAYAN SAHA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment dated 11.12.90 passed by the learned Special Judge, Assam, Guwahati in Special Case No. 8/86 convicting and sentencing the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default to a further period of rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

(2.) The facts briefly are that a first information report was lodged by the Superintendent of Police, SPE/CBI, Silchar on 27.2.85 alleging that the appellant who was a Goods Clerk, N.F. Rly, Silchar, was in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income and therefore was guilty of offence under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Pursuant to the said first information report, investigation was made by the C.B.I, and a charge sheet was filed before the Special Judge, Assam, Guwahati. On 20.1.87, the following charge was framed against the appellant by the learned Special Judge, Assam, Guwahati.

(3.) At the hearing, Mr C.R. Dey and Mr J.M. Choudhury learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the assets found disproportionate to the known sources of income of the appellant as per the charge sheet included the cost of building valued at Rs.2,03,213/-, but the appellant led evidence in fie trial to show that the valuation of the building was only Rs. 1,09,395/- and that the said evidence led by the appellant through D. W.2 in Ext. A was accepted by the learned Special Judge, Assam, Guwahati in the impugned judgment. Hence, the difference between the valuation of Rs.2,03,213/- made by the prosecution and of Rs. 1,09,395/- as given by the defence and accepted by the learned Special Judge, Assam, Guwahati which works out to Rs.93,8187- has to be deducted from the figure of Rs. 1,02,894.84 for the purpose of finding out the assets in possession of the appellant disproportionate to his known sources of income. So, deducted, the amount' is reduced to Rs 9,076.84 which is less than 10% of the total income of the appellant of Rs. 1,03,484.57 during the check period from 1.1.82 to 28.2185. According to the learned counsel for the appellant an amount of surplus assets is only Rs.9,076.80 which was less than the 10% of the total income of the appellant during the check period cannot held to be disproportionate to the known sources of income of the appellant and therefore the appellant cannot be held guilty of the offence under Section 5(2) read with iSection 5( 1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. In support of this submission teamed counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Krishnanand-Vs-The State of Madhya Pradesh (1977) 1 SCC 816 and on the decision of the Orissa High Court in Hemanta Kumar Mohanty, 1973 (1) SLR 1121),