STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. SURINDER KUMAR SIKAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 28.2.2011 rendered by the Special Judge, Kullu in Sessions Trial No. 1 of 2003 against the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the "accused" for convenience sake), who was charged with and tried for offences under sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, has been acquitted.

(2.) CASE of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that investigation was conducted by PW -46 Hirdu Ram, Deputy Superintendent of Police and Inspector Inder Singh for the check period 1980 to 1990 and 1991 to 1999 after the registration of FIR against the accused. House of the accused was also raided. Police found ten saving bank pass books and cash certificates of J& K Bank, Kullu. According to the prosecution, total amount of Rs. 1,08,367/ - was found to have been deposited for the check period 1991 to 1999 and principal amount of cash certificates amounting to Rs. 1,60,000/ - was found to have been deposited on 5.11.1998. The details of domestic articles found in the official residence were also prepared. According to the details, value of domestic articles found to be Rs. 1,27,495/ - alleging that articles worth Rs. 17,870/ - were purchased from the years 1980 to 1990 and articles worth Rs. 1,09,545/ - were found to have been purchased during the check period 1991 to 1999. The police also found shares and debentures of different institutions amounting to Rs. 1,92,000/ - from the personal almirah of the accused. According to the prosecution case, it was found that accused purchased debentures for a sum of Rs. 49,130/ - for the check period 1980 to 1990 and Rs. 1,42,970 for the check period 1991 to 1999. Locker No. 46 in Bank of India, Branch Mandi was also searched. Police found 23 FDRs of different banks and 484.700 grams golden ornaments were also found. Record of 23 FDRs was also taken into possession. It was found that principal amount of Rs. 16,20,302/ - was found to have been deposited in the years 1991 to 1999. According to the prosecution, out of total 484.700 grams gold, 350 grams gold was found to have been purchased before 1980 and the same had been mentioned in the property returns of the accused as well as in the statement of wealth owned by his wife. 134.700 grams ornaments were stated to have been purchased during the period 1991 to 1999 for a sum of Rs. 66,509/ -. Police also took into possession record/sale deeds of immovable property purchased by the accused at different places. It was found that during the check period 1980 to 1990, accused spent a sum Rs. 3,03,622/ - for the purchase of land and no immovable property was found to have been purchased between 1991 to 1999. Statement of accounts of GPF was also obtained and it was found that from the period 1980 to 1990, accused deposited a sum of Rs. 1,79,320/ - and a sum of Rs. 5,55,291 was found to have been deposited from the years 1991 to 1999. Assets and liability returns for the period 1980 to 1999 were also taken into possession. His salary was got verified from the concerned authorities where he remained posted with effect from 1.1.1980 to 31.12.1999. His gross salary was found to be Rs. 5,08,515/ -. Home take salary was found to be Rs. 3,05,611.05. According to the prosecution case, during the check period 1980 to 1990 and 1.1.1991 to 31.12.1999, net gross salary of the accused has been proved to be Rs. 16,21,056/ - and his home take salary was found to be Rs. 9,58,589/ - after deducting the income tax and house rent deductions etc. Similarly, according to the prosecution case, for the check period 1991 to 1999, his gross salary was accounted for Rs. 14,62,260/ -. His assets and liability returns for 1980 to 1999 were inspected and it was found that FDR and share interest income was found to be Rs. 1,26,440/ - and for the years 1991 to 1999 Rs. 6,41,976/ -. It was also found that during the check period 1980 to 1990, accused sold immovable property for Rs. 1,26,440/ - and for the year 1991 to 1999 for Rs. 6,41,976/ -. It was also found that during the check period 1980 to 1990, accused sold immovable property for Rs. 1,68,000/ - which has been further described as a plot in Panchkula which was sold for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ - and plot was sold for Rs. 68,000/ - in Defence Colony, Patiala. According to the prosecution, during the check period 1991 to 1999, accused sold immovable property for ' five lakhs. Accused sold his ancestral house in Nabha District Patiala in the year 1991 for a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/ -. Similarly, he sold a tea garden in Palampur for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/ - in the year 1995 and in the year 1997, he sold a plot in Krishna Nagar, Hamirpur for Rs. 90,000/ -. The total income of the accused on account of house rent was assessed at Rs. 25,200/ - from the years 1984 to 1990 and his income from 1991 to 1999 from other sources, i.e. L.I.C. etc. was found to be Rs. 1,76,122/ -. The statement of wealth pertaining to his wife was also taken in possession. According to the statement of wealth, accused purchased an apple orchard on 12.6.1987, area of which has been described as 5 -18 bighas for a sum of Rs. 40,000/ - and second apple orchard on 13.9.1988 for a sum of Rs. 25,000/ -. Both the apple orchards were situated in village Bradha, Tehsil and District Kullu. The assessment of the value was got done from the District Horticulture Officer. According to him, the income from the orchard for the years 1980 to 1990 has been described as Rs. 27,307/ - and similarly income from both the orchards has been shown as Rs. 2,31,978/ - for the period 1991 to 1999. In the investigation, the police on the basis of enquiry and information found the income of Rs. 2,86,572/ - disproportionate from his known valid sources from the years 1980 to 1990. Similarly, according to the prosecution case, police authorities found Rs. 7,95,768/ - disproportionate assets to the known sources of income of the accused for the years 1991 to 1999. Thereafter, after completing all the codal formalities, challan was put up in the court.

(3.) MR . Parmod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused.