PURAN CHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being M.L. Garg, aggrieved by the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Bikaner in Criminal Case No. 2/86 convicting the accused under Section 5 (1) (e) read with Section 5 (2) of the Anti Corruption Act and sentenced to 1 year R.I., this appeal is preferred on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal.

(2.) With the assistance of the learned Counsel and the learned Public Prosecutor, I have scrutinised the record and re -appreciated the evidence.

(3.) On re - appreciation of evidence, I find that the defence version of the entire prosecution evidence considered in proper (sic) not make out a case of disproportionate assets in possession of the appellant. The wife of the appellant was serving and had her own savings which were added to the savings of the husband appellant and the house was constructed the house was in the name of wife. In this state of fact it cannot be said that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 5 (1) (e) of the Anti Corruption Act, 1947 as firstly the assets are disproportionate to income of the accused and secondly, the house is not solely in the name of the accused. The prosecution has thus, failed to prove the charge of the accused holding assets disproportionate to his income. In such circumstances, the appeal is liable to be allowed. It is therefore, allowed. The order of conviction dated 3-7-1989 is set aside. The bail bonds are cancelled. Appeal allowed.