SHYAM LAL SODHA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 19.8.2013 rendered by learned Special Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan in Corruption Case No. 44-CC/7 of 2011, whereby the appellant-accused (herein after referred to as the "accused"), was charged with and tried for offences under section 13 (2) read with section 13 (I) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" for brevity sake), has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, he was further ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that accused remained posted as Superintendent in the office of Regional Transport Officer, Parwanoo Barrier with effect from 1.1.1998 to 31.12.2002. A complaint was received against accused in Vigilance South Zone, Shimla, regarding accumulation of assets beyond his known sources of income. The complaint was assigned for enquiry to PW-9, Dilshad Mohammed, the-then Inspector Vigilance, Nahan. He submitted his report dated 28.1.2005, Ex.P-35, supplementary reports dated 29.12.2005 Ex.P-33 and 31.7.2006, Ex.P-27. PW-10 Ms. Subhara Tiwari, the-then Deputy Superintendent of Police, SV & ACB, Nahan conducted further inquiry into the sources of income of the accused during the check period from the years 1998 to 2002. She submitted supplementary inquiry report, Ex. PW-10/A. According to her, during the check period from the years 1998 to 2002, the total income of the accused from all sources was Rs. 8,39,257.00 and the total expenditure was Rs. 15,07,319.00 and, as such, he spent a sum of Rs. 6,68,062.00 beyond his known sources of income. On the basis of report Ex .PW-10/A, FIR Ex.PW-12/A was registered against the accused in Police Station, SV & ACB, Nahan. The Investigating Officer collected the documentary evidence against the accused. Total income of the accused from known sources was Rs. 8,39,257.00 and the total expenditure was found to Rs. 15,37,259.00 and, as such, he has unexplained expenditure of Rs. 6,73,002.00. The challan was put up in the Court after completing all the codal formalities.

(3.) Prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Statement of the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded. He pleaded innocence. According to him, he had 40 years unblemished career in the Department. The Learned Special Judge convicted and sentenced the accused, as noticed herein above. Hence, the present appeal.