LAXMI PRASAD TEWARI Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this Appeal the Appellant seeks to assail the judgment dated 24 -12 -2012 passed by the Learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok in S.T. (Vig.) Case No. 4 of 2004 by which the Appellant was found guilty of the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act of 1988') corresponding to Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act of 1947') punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act of 1988 corresponding to Section 5(2) of the Act of 1947 and was accordingly convicted to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ - (Rupees ten thousand). In default of payment of the fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months.

(2.) THE factual matrix of the case relevant for the purpose of this Appeal is that based upon a source information, case under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Act of 1988 corresponding to Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Act of 1947 was registered as RC -14/97 dated 15 -10 -1997 against the Appellant, a former Secretary -cum -Principal Chief Engineer, Power Department, Government of Sikkim for having allegedly acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income while holding office in various capacities as a public servant in his own name and 'benami' in the names of his dependants by misusing his position as such public servant.

(3.) THE check period was taken as 01 -04 -1986 to 31 -03 -1997. The beginning of the check period was fixed as 01 -04 -1986 as no evidence in the form of records pertaining to his bank accounts or details of salary prior to that date could be collected. Apart from the bank balance of the Appellant and his wife at the beginning of the check period, the Appellant had been given the benefit of Rs. 9,630/ - as cash in hand on 01 -04 -1986 which was equivalent to his five months' net salary drawn by him at that time. No further investment was found to have been made by the Appellant after March, 1997 and, therefore, this date was considered as the end of the check period.