STATE OF HARYANA Vs. SANT LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Haryana through its Public Prosecutor has sought leave to appeal against the judgment dated 21.11.2007 passed by Special Judge (under Prevention of Corruption Act), Sirsa recording acquittal of the accused-respondent Sant Lal (herein referred as respondent') under Section 13(1) of the Act.

(2.) IN nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that a complaint was received in the office of Chief Secretary, Vigilance, Haryana to the effect that the respondent had acquired properties beyond his known sources of income, which was sent to the Superintendent of Police, State Vigilance Bureau (H), Hisar. On enquiry, it was found that income of the respondent during the year 1970 to 2000 was Rs. 10,38,600/-, while, he had acquired the properties worth Rs. 12,52,480/-. Therefore, he acquired property worth Rs. 2,13,880/- in excess to his known sources of income. Thereafter, in a supplementary enquiry, it was found that income of the respondent from all sources during the period 1970 to 2000 was Rs. 10,67,956/-, whereas, his expenditure was Rs. 11,72,915/-. This time also, it was found that the respondent had acquired property worth Rs. 1,40,171/- more than his known sources of income. Consequent thereupon, vide his letter dated 20.8.2004, the Director, SVB(H), Panchkula got the present case registered against the respondent. It was investigated and the charge- report was submitted in the Court.

(3.) IT is contended that sufficient evidence has been led by the prosecution to hold the respondent guilty of the offence. The respondent acquired disproportionate assets then his known sources of income. Additional Advocate General while referring the statements of Pyare Lal, Clerk (PW4), Rameshwar Kumar Lamba, Inspector (P8) Krishan Kumar, LDC (PW12) and Nand Lal, Inspector (PW16) has contended that the Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in right perspective.