BALDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment passed by the Court of Special Judge, Patiala on 18.2.1991, vide which the appellant was convicted and sentenced for having committed an offence punishable. under Section 5(i)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (now Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988).

(2.) THE facts of the case are that Baldev Singh -appellant had joined as Technical Assistant Grade -Ill in Food Corporation Punjab on 1.5.1970. He was promoted as Technical Assistant Grade 1 on 24.5.1973 in the said Corporation and he was posted at Patran w.e.f. 30.12.1976. He had no immovable property as on 1.1.1975 but he started leading luxurious life and amassed assets worth lakhs of rupees. Accordingly, a case was registered against him for possessing property disproportionate to his known sources of income. The facts discovered during the investigation relating to the income of Baldev Singh, his expenses during the period from 1.1.1975 to 20.5.1982 and the properties movable and immovable acquired by him during the said period and the net assets which he came to hold were disproportionate to his known sources of income. The income of Baldev Singh, during the period from 1.1.1975 to 20.5.1982 was only about Rs.69,232.54 by way of salary @ Rs.800 -900/ - per month. He had no other source of legal income. During this period he had expended money to the tune of Rs. 1,02,137.12 and Rs.2,96,683.29 were found to be in excess of his known sources of income. The case was investigated and he was sent up for trial before the Special Judge, CBI, Punjab, Patiala.

(3.) IN support of its case, the prosecution -examined in all 48 witnesses besides producing a number of documents showing the assets and properties of the appellant disproportionate to the known sources of income of the appellant. Since prosecution had taken abnormal time in closing its evidence, therefore, the prosecution evidence was closed by the Court, vide order dated 3.1.1991.