DINESH MISHRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision is directed against the order impugned dated 6.9.2010, recorded by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in R.C.-3A/03(D) by which the discharge petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner was rejected for the alleged offence punishable under Section 13(l)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) Prosecution story in short was that during the check period from 1.4.1996 to 21.3.2003 Petitioner acquired assets worth Rs. 50,67,065.51/- as against his legal income of Rs. 24,79,501.27/-. It was further alleged that the Petitioner Dr. Dinesh Mishra during the period of check made an expenditure of Rs. 14,27,640.77/-, as such, his likely savings was found to be Rs. 10,51,860.50/- against which he acquired assets worth Rs. 50,67,065.51/-. The C.B.I, after investigation of the case found that Dr. Dinesh Mishra acquired assets worth Rs. 38,17,295.48/- which was disproportionate to his known sources of income and the acquisition of the same could neither be accounted for satisfactorily nor replied by him, so it was found by the Investigating Officer that the disproportionate assets earned by him were considered to be earned by corrupt and illegal means and hence, offence was attracted under Section 13(1) (e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was also obtained for prosecution of the Petitioner.

(3.) Mr. Roy, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Petitioner was in possession of 20 bighas, 10 kathas and 10 chhataks of HUF agricultural landed property at Madhubani, out of which the Petitioner had one-fifth share and that the share of his mother in the said property was also one-fifth. Her mother was wholly dependent upon him. The Petitioner and his mother used to earn Rs. 25,000/- each, out of total agricultural income of Rs. 1,40,000/- per annum as per the certificate issued by the Revenue Authority, Jhanjharpur, but the learned Special Judge failed to take into consideration and this income was not considered for evaluation of the income of the Petitioner during check period. Petitioner had constructed his house at Kusum Vihar after obtaining necessary permission from MADA. According to the valuation report dated 18.3.2003, the valuation of the house was assessed at Rs. 16,85,710/- being the total value but at that time only 90% work was complete, as such, value was shown as Rs. 15,28,635/-and the balance work of the value Rs. 1,57,600/- was completed thereafter. On the other hand, the C.B.I, has shown the valuation of the house at Rs. 25,03,152/- in statement (B) of the charge-sheet in Serial No. 1 and arbitrarily enhanced the valuation of the house by Rs. 8,17,442/-. The wife of the Petitioner was also an Income Tax Assessee and has got her own Permanent Account Number (PAN) issued by the Income Tax Authority having her regular income. The C.B.I. had shown excess expenditure in Statement-D of the charge-sheet during the check period as Rs. 14,27,640.77/-, whereas it should have been Rs. l1.46,335.77/-, thus an excess amount to the tune of Rs. 2,81,305.77/-was shown by the C.B.I.