STATE Vs. DULI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 7. 4. 1986 passed by the Special Judge, Anti-corruption Cases, Jodhpur by which the respondent Dulichand has been acquitted.

(2.) THE State through Anti-corruption Department submitted a challan against respondent Dulichand under section 5 (1 ) (d)& (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the accused argued that the learned trial court has discussed each item in the judgment elaborately. The trial court held that gold ornaments worth Rs. 12,000/- is 'stridhan' of Smt. Sarjudevi wife of the accused. The trial court has also held that the prosecution has failed to prove Chat gold weighing ten tolas was found during search in the house of the accused. The recovery witness Kishanlal has not supported the prosecution story. The Dy. S P. Shri Satya Prakash too did not say that the article alleging to be gold was recovered from the house of the accused. Therefore, the recovery regarding gold weighing ten tolas has not been established. A sum of Rs. 6007/- has been added in the income by the trial court being the amount of premium paid to State Insurance, and the trial court has correctly added this income. With regard to amount of Rs. 23600/- it was argued that this includes Rs. 16915/- as F. D. receipts and Rs. 6685/- as interest on the F. D. receipts. The court has correctly concluded with regard to this amount. There is clear finding of the court and it is correct that Rs. 32000/- recovered from the house of the accused belong to Dulichand Prabhachand shop. The accused has proved this aspect through Rokar Bah' Ex P. 22, which was produced by the prosecution itself It was also argued that 2 accused has proved that he had taken loan of Rs. 3000/- from the shop of Dulichand Prabhachand for purchasing scooter and from his pocket he had on1 J a sum of Rs 286/ -. Regarding salary during the period from 1. 4 44 to 1/; the contention of the accused was that he received salary Rs. = 86176. 32 while according to the prosecution the salary comes to Rs. 80578/ -. . There is not much difference in this amount. The accused has also not denied that he had received interest and rent as alleged by the prosecution. The prosecution has admitted that from the salary the accused had a saving of Rs. 26826/ -. So the argument advanced on behalf of the accused is that the trial court had correctly held that the accused has explained the property worth Rs. 61692/- and according to the prosecution allegation the property worth. Rs, 90093/- was found in possession at the time of search. So the trial court has correctly held that the property worth Rs. 28401/- could be said to be in possession of the accused. From the saving of the salary and adding the amount of interest and rent Rs. 42790/- comes to the accused so it cannot be said that the accused had in excess to his savings or has disproportionate assets with him.