Research Results Based on the Query
ACT
ARG
SCJ
HCJ
Query: A senior government officer owned assets disproportionate to known sources of income and the appellant, son of the government officer, has helped him in the commission of the said offence. The respondent is the CBI, and I am counsel for the CBI.
Revised Query: A senior government officer owned assets disproportionate to known sources of income, and the appellant, son of the government officer, has helped him in the commission of the said offense. The respondent is the CBI, and I am counsel for the CBI.
Revised Query: A senior government officer owned assets disproportionate to known sources of income, and the appellant, son of the government officer, has helped him in the commission of the said offense. The respondent is the CBI, and I am counsel for the CBI.
Related Articles and Sections
Introduction
In the case presented, the senior government officer owning assets disproportionate to known sources of income raises suspicions of corruption and potential violation of anti-corruption laws in India. The involvement of the appellant, who is the son of the government officer, in aiding the commission of the offense further complicates the matter. As counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), it is crucial to analyze the legal aspects of the case and determine the appropriate course of action within the framework of Indian laws.
Relevant Laws and Provisions
1. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: The primary legislation dealing with corruption offenses in India is the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Section 13 of the Act deals with criminal misconduct by a public servant, including possession of disproportionate assets.
2. Indian Penal Code, 1860: Various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 may also be relevant in this case, especially regarding criminal conspiracy (Section 120B) and abetment of an offense (Section 107).
3. Income Tax Act, 1961: The Income Tax Act, 1961 is crucial in determining the legality of the sources of income and assets held by the government officer and his son.
Analysis
1. Disproportionate Assets of the Government Officer: The ownership of assets disproportionate to known sources of income by a public servant is a serious offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Section 13(1)(e) of the Act defines criminal misconduct to include possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish that the assets held by the government officer are disproportionate to his lawful income.
2. Role of the Appellant: The involvement of the appellant, the son of the government officer, in aiding the commission of the offense raises issues of criminal conspiracy and abetment. Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code deals with criminal conspiracy, while Section 107 addresses abetment of an offense. The appellant's actions in assisting his father in acquiring and managing the disproportionate assets may render him liable under these provisions.
3. Investigation by the CBI: As counsel for the CBI, it is imperative to ensure a thorough investigation into the matter. The CBI has the authority to investigate offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Section 5 of the Act empowers the CBI to investigate offenses committed by public servants of the central government.
4. Seizure of Assets: If the investigation reveals evidence of disproportionate assets acquired through illegal means, the CBI may proceed to seize such assets under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Section 5A of the Act allows for the attachment of property involved in corruption offenses.
5. Prosecution and Trial: Once the investigation is complete, the CBI can file a charge sheet against the government officer and the appellant under the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Indian Penal Code. The trial will take place before a Special Court designated under the Act.
Strategy
1. Gather Evidence: The first step is to gather substantial evidence to establish the ownership of disproportionate assets by the government officer and the involvement of the appellant in aiding the offense. This may include financial records, property documents, and witness statements.
2. Forensic Examination: Conduct a forensic examination of the financial transactions and assets to trace the sources of income and identify any discrepancies that indicate corruption or illegal activities.
3. Questioning and Statements: Obtain statements from the government officer and the appellant under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code to elicit information regarding the acquisition of assets and their sources of income.
4. Asset Seizure: If there is sufficient evidence of disproportionate assets, proceed to seize the assets under Section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to prevent their disposal or transfer.
5. Charge Sheet and Trial: Prepare a comprehensive charge sheet detailing the offenses committed by the government officer and the appellant and present it before the Special Court for trial. Ensure effective prosecution to secure convictions based on the evidence gathered.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the case of the senior government officer owning disproportionate assets with the assistance of the appellant presents a serious violation of anti-corruption laws in India. As counsel for the CBI, it is essential to conduct a thorough investigation, gather evidence, and proceed with prosecution in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Indian Penal Code. By following a strategic approach and presenting a strong case before the Special Court, the CBI can ensure justice is served in combating corruption at all levels of governance.
In the case presented, the senior government officer owning assets disproportionate to known sources of income raises suspicions of corruption and potential violation of anti-corruption laws in India. The involvement of the appellant, who is the son of the government officer, in aiding the commission of the offense further complicates the matter. As counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), it is crucial to analyze the legal aspects of the case and determine the appropriate course of action within the framework of Indian laws.
Relevant Laws and Provisions
1. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: The primary legislation dealing with corruption offenses in India is the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Section 13 of the Act deals with criminal misconduct by a public servant, including possession of disproportionate assets.
2. Indian Penal Code, 1860: Various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 may also be relevant in this case, especially regarding criminal conspiracy (Section 120B) and abetment of an offense (Section 107).
3. Income Tax Act, 1961: The Income Tax Act, 1961 is crucial in determining the legality of the sources of income and assets held by the government officer and his son.
Analysis
1. Disproportionate Assets of the Government Officer: The ownership of assets disproportionate to known sources of income by a public servant is a serious offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Section 13(1)(e) of the Act defines criminal misconduct to include possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish that the assets held by the government officer are disproportionate to his lawful income.
2. Role of the Appellant: The involvement of the appellant, the son of the government officer, in aiding the commission of the offense raises issues of criminal conspiracy and abetment. Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code deals with criminal conspiracy, while Section 107 addresses abetment of an offense. The appellant's actions in assisting his father in acquiring and managing the disproportionate assets may render him liable under these provisions.
3. Investigation by the CBI: As counsel for the CBI, it is imperative to ensure a thorough investigation into the matter. The CBI has the authority to investigate offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Section 5 of the Act empowers the CBI to investigate offenses committed by public servants of the central government.
4. Seizure of Assets: If the investigation reveals evidence of disproportionate assets acquired through illegal means, the CBI may proceed to seize such assets under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Section 5A of the Act allows for the attachment of property involved in corruption offenses.
5. Prosecution and Trial: Once the investigation is complete, the CBI can file a charge sheet against the government officer and the appellant under the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Indian Penal Code. The trial will take place before a Special Court designated under the Act.
Strategy
1. Gather Evidence: The first step is to gather substantial evidence to establish the ownership of disproportionate assets by the government officer and the involvement of the appellant in aiding the offense. This may include financial records, property documents, and witness statements.
2. Forensic Examination: Conduct a forensic examination of the financial transactions and assets to trace the sources of income and identify any discrepancies that indicate corruption or illegal activities.
3. Questioning and Statements: Obtain statements from the government officer and the appellant under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code to elicit information regarding the acquisition of assets and their sources of income.
4. Asset Seizure: If there is sufficient evidence of disproportionate assets, proceed to seize the assets under Section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to prevent their disposal or transfer.
5. Charge Sheet and Trial: Prepare a comprehensive charge sheet detailing the offenses committed by the government officer and the appellant and present it before the Special Court for trial. Ensure effective prosecution to secure convictions based on the evidence gathered.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the case of the senior government officer owning disproportionate assets with the assistance of the appellant presents a serious violation of anti-corruption laws in India. As counsel for the CBI, it is essential to conduct a thorough investigation, gather evidence, and proceed with prosecution in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Indian Penal Code. By following a strategic approach and presenting a strong case before the Special Court, the CBI can ensure justice is served in combating corruption at all levels of governance.
Likely Arguments
Potential Arguments by Opposing Counsel
1. Lack of Concrete Evidence: Opposing counsel may argue that there is a lack of concrete evidence linking the government officer to the ownership of disproportionate assets and the appellant's involvement in aiding the offense.
2. Legality of Assets: They may claim that the assets held by the government officer are legitimate and acquired through lawful means, challenging the assertion of disproportionate assets.
3. Absence of Direct Involvement: Opposing counsel might argue that the appellant had no direct involvement in the commission of the offense and was unaware of any illegal activities conducted by the government officer.
4. Violation of Rights: They may raise concerns about potential violations of the rights of the government officer and the appellant during the investigation and prosecution process, citing procedural irregularities.
Counterarguments and Legal Responses
1. Burden of Proof: As per Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish the ownership of disproportionate assets by the government officer. The CBI must present substantial evidence to meet this burden.
2. Forensic Examination: Conducting a forensic examination of the financial transactions and assets can help counter the argument regarding the legality of assets. Any discrepancies or irregularities found during the examination can support the claim of disproportionate assets.
3. Criminal Conspiracy: Under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant can be held liable for criminal conspiracy if it is proven that he assisted the government officer in acquiring disproportionate assets. Any communication or collaboration between the two can be used as evidence to establish this charge.
4. Abetment of Offense: Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code addresses abetment of an offense. If the appellant knowingly aided or encouraged the government officer in committing the offense of possessing disproportionate assets, he can be held accountable for abetment.
5. Procedural Compliance: Ensure that all investigative and prosecutorial procedures are conducted in accordance with the law to avoid any allegations of rights violations. Adhere to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act to maintain the integrity of the case.
Optimal Defense Strategy
1. Comprehensive Evidence Gathering: Strengthen the case by gathering concrete evidence, including financial records, witness statements, and forensic analysis results, to establish the ownership of disproportionate assets and the appellant's involvement.
2. Strategic Witness Examination: Carefully examine witnesses to elicit crucial information that supports the prosecution's case while undermining any potential defenses raised by the opposing counsel.
3. Focused Prosecution: Present a focused and well-prepared prosecution case before the Special Court, highlighting the violations of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code by the government officer and the appellant.
4. Legal Expertise: Utilize legal expertise to effectively counter any arguments raised by the opposing counsel, citing relevant sections of Indian laws and precedents to strengthen the prosecution's position.
5. Maintain Transparency: Ensure transparency in the investigation and trial process to demonstrate the integrity of the case and uphold the principles of justice and accountability in combating corruption.
By following this defense strategy and addressing potential arguments raised by the opposing counsel, you can effectively represent the CBI in prosecuting the government officer and the appellant for their involvement in the offense of possessing disproportionate assets.
1. Lack of Concrete Evidence: Opposing counsel may argue that there is a lack of concrete evidence linking the government officer to the ownership of disproportionate assets and the appellant's involvement in aiding the offense.
2. Legality of Assets: They may claim that the assets held by the government officer are legitimate and acquired through lawful means, challenging the assertion of disproportionate assets.
3. Absence of Direct Involvement: Opposing counsel might argue that the appellant had no direct involvement in the commission of the offense and was unaware of any illegal activities conducted by the government officer.
4. Violation of Rights: They may raise concerns about potential violations of the rights of the government officer and the appellant during the investigation and prosecution process, citing procedural irregularities.
Counterarguments and Legal Responses
1. Burden of Proof: As per Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish the ownership of disproportionate assets by the government officer. The CBI must present substantial evidence to meet this burden.
2. Forensic Examination: Conducting a forensic examination of the financial transactions and assets can help counter the argument regarding the legality of assets. Any discrepancies or irregularities found during the examination can support the claim of disproportionate assets.
3. Criminal Conspiracy: Under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant can be held liable for criminal conspiracy if it is proven that he assisted the government officer in acquiring disproportionate assets. Any communication or collaboration between the two can be used as evidence to establish this charge.
4. Abetment of Offense: Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code addresses abetment of an offense. If the appellant knowingly aided or encouraged the government officer in committing the offense of possessing disproportionate assets, he can be held accountable for abetment.
5. Procedural Compliance: Ensure that all investigative and prosecutorial procedures are conducted in accordance with the law to avoid any allegations of rights violations. Adhere to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act to maintain the integrity of the case.
Optimal Defense Strategy
1. Comprehensive Evidence Gathering: Strengthen the case by gathering concrete evidence, including financial records, witness statements, and forensic analysis results, to establish the ownership of disproportionate assets and the appellant's involvement.
2. Strategic Witness Examination: Carefully examine witnesses to elicit crucial information that supports the prosecution's case while undermining any potential defenses raised by the opposing counsel.
3. Focused Prosecution: Present a focused and well-prepared prosecution case before the Special Court, highlighting the violations of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code by the government officer and the appellant.
4. Legal Expertise: Utilize legal expertise to effectively counter any arguments raised by the opposing counsel, citing relevant sections of Indian laws and precedents to strengthen the prosecution's position.
5. Maintain Transparency: Ensure transparency in the investigation and trial process to demonstrate the integrity of the case and uphold the principles of justice and accountability in combating corruption.
By following this defense strategy and addressing potential arguments raised by the opposing counsel, you can effectively represent the CBI in prosecuting the government officer and the appellant for their involvement in the offense of possessing disproportionate assets.
Relevant Supreme Court Judgments
Year From: 1950, Year To: 2024
Year From: 1950, Year To: 2024
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges B.S. Chauhan, S.A. Bobde
Date of Judgment: 31 Oct 2013
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 1
Relevancy Score: 73.29
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1838 OF 2013 C.B.I. ...Appellant Versus Ashok Kumar Aggarwal ...Respondent J U D G M E N T Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 3.10.2007 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi allowing Crl. R.P. No. 589 of 2007, setting aside the order dated 28.7.2007 passed by the court of Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CBI’), by which and whereunder the Special Judge rejected the application of the respondent questioning the sanction granted by the competent authority under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act 1988’), observing that the issue could be examined during trial. 2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that: A. The appellant, CBI registered a preliminary enquiry against the respondent for disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.8,38,456/- on 17.9.1999. After conclusion of the preliminary enquiry, a regular case was registered on 7.12.1999 as FIR No. S19/E0006/99 in respect of the same to the tune of Rs.40,42,23,478/-. B. During the course of investigation, it came to light that disproportionate assets were only to the tune of Rs.12,04,46,936/-, which was 7615.45 times of his known sources of income. It further surfaced that the respondent was involved in money laundering; and for channelising his ill-gotten wealth, had established a number of companies wherein his family members were the founding directors. C. The CBI sent a letter to the Ministry of Finance dated 24.5.2002 for accord of sanction for prosecution of the respondent. The same was accompanied by the Superintendent of Police’s (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SP’) report of 163 pages containing a detailed gist of the relevant statements and documents including the information on income tax returns etc. D. The Central Vigilance Commission after examining the said case advised the Ministry of Finance to grant sanction for prosecution. The Investigating Officer visited the Directorate of Income Tax (Vigilance) in September 2002 and placed necessary documents for the perusal of the Additional Director, Income Tax (Vigilance) who was seized of the matter pertaining to the sanction for prosecution of the respondent. The Finance Minister accorded sanction vide order dated 2.11.2002 and as a consequence thereof, the sanction order was issued vide order dated 26.11.2002 under the seal and signature of the Under Secretary (V&L), Ministry of Finance.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges Dr. Chandrachud, B.V. Nagarathna
Date of Judgment: 08 Oct 2021
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 2
Relevancy Score: 69.66
The FIR has thus been registered for offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 5 and Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 6. The allegation is of possession of Disproportionate Assets to the tune of Rs 1,10,81,692, which was 22.86 per cent of the income earned during the check period between 1 April 2010 to 29 February 2016. 3 While quashing the FIR, the High Court held that: (i) the information about the respondents’ income can be ascertained from their ‘known sources of income’ under Writ Petition No 8552 of 2018 “FIR” “MLA” FIR No RC MAl 2017 A 0021 “PC Act” “IPC” PART B Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, such as their Income Tax Returns, information submitted to their department under the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964 7 and affidavit filed under the Representation of the People Act 1951 8 and the Rules under it; (ii) to counter the veracity of the information from these sources, the appellant, Central Bureau of Investigation 9, should have conducted a Preliminary Enquiry under the Central Bureau of Investigation (Crime) Manual 200510 before registration of the FIR; and (iii) on the basis of the information ascertained from these ‘known sources of income’, the allegations against the respondents in the FIR prima facie seem unsustainable. This view of the High Court has been called into question in these proceedings. B Factual and procedural history 4 Since 1992, the first respondent is a Civil Servant of the Indian Revenue Services 11, and was working as Commissioner of Income Tax (Audit -II), Tamil Nadu & Pondicherry when the FIR was registered against her. She is presently working as Commissioner of Income Tax (Audit) at Hyderabad. The second respondent is the spouse of the first respondent, and was also a Civil Servant working in the Indian Railway Accounts Services till 2009. At the time of the registration of the FIR, he was and continues to be, at present, an MLA of the State of Andhra Pradesh and “CCS Rules” “RP Act” “CBI” “CBI Manual” “IRS” PART B holds the post of the Minister of Education for the State of Andhra Pradesh. He was also a Member of the Committees on Assurances, SC&ST Welfare and Public Accounts. 5 The FIR was registered against the respondents by CBI’s Anti-Corruption Branch 12 in Chennai on 20 September 2017. The FIR noted that the “check period” was between 1 April 2010 and 29 February 2016. The FIR records that it was registered on the basis of “source information” received by the CBI ACB Chennai on the same date, at about 4 pm.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges Prafulla C. Pant, Ranjan Gogoi
Date of Judgment: 18 Oct 2016
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 1
Relevancy Score: 68.99
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2491 OF 2014 Vivek Batra … Appellant Versus Union of India and others … Respondents J U D G M E N T Prafulla C. Pant, J. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 29.10.2013, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3654 of 2012, whereby the petition challenging the sanction dated 09.10.2012 for prosecution of the appellant under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an officer of cadre of Indian Revenue Service (for short “IRS”), who entered into the service through 1992 batch. It is stated that an FIR RC No. BA1/2005/A0017 was registered on 04.04.2005 by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) (Respondent No. 4) in respect of disproportionate assets to the known sources of the appellant. The prosecution case is that the appellant has amassed the assets valued at Rs.1,27,38,353/- in his name and in the names of his wife and minor son during the check period 04.01.1993 to 31.03.2004, which is disproportionate to the known sources of his income. The investigation took almost six years to get completed, which revealed that a sum of Rs.56,30,296/- was invested by the appellant through Benami transactions in the names of his wife and son in two companies, namely, M/s. ARJ Impex Private Limited and M/s. Malik Hospitality Services Private Limited. According to CBI, the appellant’s wife Priyanka Batra incorporated a company, M/s. ARJ Impex Limited, to engage in import-export business, and then sold her shares in the company to her two uncles, namely, Karan Singh and Vijay Kumar. The company’s main source of income was unsecured loans obtained from various companies and individuals, many of which were never paid back, several of these loans were from Priyanka Batra herself. Further, though the sale of income of the company was minimal, it acquired assets of Rs.85,70,770/- during the check period. It appears that Karan Singh and Vijay Kumar had incorporated another company called M/s. Malik Hospitality Services, whose main source of income was unsecured loans from various individuals and companies. The company had acquired assets of Rs.20,52,013/- and had unrepaid loans of Rs.26,77,000/- during the check period. Priyanka Batra was connected to Malik Hospitality Services as a public notice appeared in Nav Bharat Times, showing her as the intended purchaser of a property that was to be bought for the company. The appellant was arrested on 02.09.2010, and after about three days released on bail. He was placed under suspension by the authority concerned. The CBI sought sanction for prosecution of the appellant from the competent authority on which the file was processed, and at the first stage on 03.05.2011 advice of Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) was sought by the Finance Department.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges S.B. Sinha, P.P. Naolekar
Date of Judgment: 05 Apr 2006
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 1
Relevancy Score: 68.74
CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 346 of 2005 PETITIONER: Ranjit Singh RESPONDENT: Union of India & Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/04/2006 BENCH: S.B. Sinha & P.P. Naolekar JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T S.B. Sinha, J : The Appellant herein was an Inspector, Central Excise and Customs, New Delhi. As his father died in harness, he was appointed on compassionate grounds A raid by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was conducted in his house on 29th November, 1990. He was allegedly possessing assets disproportionate to his known source of income. A criminal case was initiated against him by the CBI. On or about 31.12.1991, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. The charges framed against him were: "Article 1 That Shri Ranjit Singh during the year 1981-90 while working as a Government Servant in the capacity of Inspector Customs and Central Excise failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant inasmuch as he by exploiting his official position as a Government servant acquired assets to the tune of Rs. 6,43,737.15 in his own name and in the name of his family members which are disproportionate to the known sources to his income. During the above said period his total income from all known sources comes to Rs. 5,54,924.10 p and the expenditure comes to Rs. 1,92,676.83 and the assets disproportionate to the known sources of income come to the tune of Rs. 2,81,488.88 p. Thus, said Shri Ranjit Singh by his above acts of omission and commission contravened provisions of Rule 3 (1)(i)(ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article II That Shri Ranjit Singh during the said period while functioning in the above said capacity failed to maintain devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant as much as he invested Rs. 60,000/- in the purchase of FDRs in his own name as well as in the name of his mother Smt. Leelawanti in Punjab and Sind Bank, Vijayawada in 1981 without any intimation to his department/ Government as required under Rule 18 (3) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964." A closure report was submitted by the CBI on 20th July, 2001. In the departmental proceeding, the Appellant adduced evidences on his behalf as also cross-examined witnesses examined on behalf of the Department. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report dated 26.9.1996 exonerating him from the said charges. The Disciplinary Authority, however, differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and issued a memorandum on or about 17.2.1997 stating the reasons for his difference with the Enquiry Officer and called upon the Appellant to make his representation in his defence to the grounds of disagreement before a final decision is taken stating: "Any representation which he may wish to make against the tentative opinion will be considered by the undersigned independent of her tentative opinion.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna, Hrishikesh Roy
Date of Judgment: 25 Sep 2019
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 4
Relevancy Score: 68.74
Thus, having considered the same to be a lapse it was held that if sanctions for prosecutions were sought in that circumstance, the Sanctioning Authority would not have an opportunity to see the explanation and, therefore, sanction also would be defective. Page 9 of 15 11. Firstly, it is to be taken note that as contended by the prosecution, in the course of the investigation the accused have been summoned and their statements have been recorded which by itself is for the purpose that they were required to provide an explanation with regard to the assets which were according to the prosecution disproportionate to the known source of income. The said procedure to be followed in the course of investigation does not contemplate the consideration of the explanation in the nature of a mini trial, if not satisfactory, even before the charge sheet is filed based on the material collected and the statement recorded in the course of investigation. The details indicated in the charge sheet after making reference to the income and expenditure is as hereunder: A) The value of the assets of the 1,30,000/ beginning of the check period as per Statement “A” B) The value of the assets at the end of 1,34,45,426/ the check period as per Statement “B” C) The total assets found during the 1,33,15.426/ check period (BA) D) The total income found during the 51,02,106/ check period as per Statement “C” Page 10 of 15 E) The total expenditure during check 24,75,874/ period as per Statement “D” F) Likely saving during check period (D 26,26,232/ E) G) The Disproportionate assets (CF) Viz 1,06,89,194/ 209.50% 12. Even if it is accepted that the above statement is on clubbing the income and assets of the husband and wife who have individual source of income, the very details furnished by the CBI before the High Court by splitting it in the individual capacity will also prima facie indicate the nature of the income and the disproportionate assets allegedly possessed by them at Rs.47,93,946/ and Rs.56,75,812/ respectively. The High Court in fact has not adverted on that aspect to arrive at a conclusion that in that circumstance even if the case as put forth by the investigating agency is taken as correct the same would not constitute an offence and, therefore, they are to be discharged, which in fact is the nature of consideration required. Further the Special Court also has merely stated that it has perused the documents and a reference in that regard is made to the document at Serial No. 3, namely, the Agreement of Sale Page 11 of 15 of Flat No. A 305, Shiv Geeta Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Vasai. In any event the conclusion reached therein had been assailed before the High Court but the High Court has not adverted to those aspects of the matter.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Vineet Saran
Date of Judgment: 12 Mar 2021
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 1
Relevancy Score: 68.52
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2021 (arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 5102 of 2020) Bhima Razu Prasad ...Appellant Versus State, rep. By Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI/SPE/ACUII …Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2021 (arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 6720 of 2020) AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2021 (arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 6327 of 2020) JUDGMENT MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. 1. Signature Not Verified Leave granted. Digitally signed by GULSHAN KUMAR ARORA Date: 2021.03.13 11:16:59 IST Reason: 2. These appeals arise out of judgment dated 6.01.2020 in Crl. A. Nos. 1089, 1090 and 1091 of 2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras (“High Court”). Since they involve common facts and question of law, appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5102 of 2020 shall be taken as the leading case. 3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as follows: 3.1 The Appellant/Accused No. 1 was working as Regional Manager (South) at Chennai with the Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. On 4.01.2001 case was registered against the Appellant under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”); and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”). Subsequently, the officers of the Respondent investigative agency conducted search at the Appellant’s residence on 24.01.2001 on the basis of search warrant issued by the Special Judge, Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi. During the course of this search, an amount of Rs. 79,65,900/ (“seized currency”), in addition to jewellery and property papers, was seized from the Appellant’s residence. Since these assets were found to be disproportionate to the Appellant’s known sources of income, on 9.03.2001 a separate disproportionate assets case was registered against him under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the PC Act. It is this case that forms the factual crux of the present appeal. 3.2 During the course of investigation, Accused No. 2 V.S. Krishnan (Appellant in the connected appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 6720 of 2020) and Accused No. 3 Murugesan (Appellant in the connected appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 6327 of 2020) wrote letter dated 4.02.2002 to the Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACUII claiming that the seized currency did not belong to the Appellant/Accused No. 1. They contended that Accused No. 2 had entered into agreement of sale dated 24.01.2001 to purchase properties from Accused No. 3, for which a sum of Rs 80 lakhs was to be paid in advance. Since Accused No. 2 was not available on that date for execution of the written agreement, he had entrusted the seized currency, along with a duplicate copy of the agreement signed by him, to the Appellant. The agreement was to be executed by Accused No. 3 in the presence of Appellant.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges Surya Kant, J.B. Pardiwala
Date of Judgment: 05 Sep 2022
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 26
Relevancy Score: 68.42
In the overall perspective therefore neither the income tax returns nor the orders passed in the proceedings relatable thereto, either definitively attest the lawfulness of the sources of income of the accused persons or are of any avail to them to satisfactorily account the disproportionateness of their pecuniary resources and properties as mandated by Section 13(1)(e) of the Act. In Vishwanath Chaturvedi (3) v. Union of India [Vishwanath Chaturvedi (3) v. Union of India, (2007) 4 SCC 380 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 302] , a writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking an appropriate writ for directing the Union of India to take appropriate action to prosecute R-2 to R- 5 under the 1988 Act for having amassed assets disproportionate to the known sources of income by misusing their power and authority. The respondents were the then sitting Chief Minister of U.P. and his relatives. Having noticed that the basic issue was with regard to alleged investments and sources of such investments, Respondents 2 to 5 were ordered by this Court to file copies of income tax and wealth tax returns of the relevant assessment years which was done. It was pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that the net assets of the family though were Rs 9,22,72,000, as per the calculation made by the official valuer, the then value of the net assets came to be Rs 24 crores. It was pleaded on behalf of the respondents that income tax returns had already been filed and the matters were pending before the authorities concerned and all the payments were made by cheques, and thus the allegation levelled against them were baseless. It was observed that the minuteness of the details furnished by the parties and the income tax returns and assessment orders, sale deeds, etc. were necessary to be carefully looked into and analyzed only by an independent agency with the assistance of chartered accountants and other accredited engineers and valuers of the property. It was observed that the Income Tax Department was concerned only with the source of income and whether the tax was paid or not and, therefore, only an independent agency or CBI could, on court direction, determine the question of disproportionate assets. CBI was thus directed to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the assets of all the respondents and to take further action in the matter after scrutinizing as to whether a case was made out or not.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges K.T. Thomas, S.N. Variava
Date of Judgment: 17 Aug 2001
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 1
Relevancy Score: 68.37
CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 829 of 2001 PETITIONER: HEMANT DHASMANA Vs. RESPONDENT: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/08/2001 BENCH: K.T. Thomas & S.N. Variava JUDGMENT: THOMAS, J. Leave granted. A complainant, after investigation, was transposed as an accused. Such a prodigy happened in this case. A trap to catch a big fish (Chief Commissioner of Income Tax) was orchestrated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (the CBI for short) with a bewitching bait, but still he did not bite it. But the appellant says that two sons of the said Chief Commissioner collected the bulky cash offered to their father. On such a complaint the CBI conducted investigation. After the investigation the CBI turned against the complainant/appellant and ordered him to be prosecuted for giving false information with intent to cause the public servant use his lawful power to the detriment of the public. However, the final report laid by the CBI was not acceptable to the Special Judge and he directed further investigation into the matter but the High Court reversed the said direction by the impugned order. Appellant styles himself as a disciple of one Swami Rama, a non-resident Indian, who founded a Trust by name Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences at Dehra Dun with high profile public personage shown as its patrons. The Trust had a lot of income tax problems. Appellant felt that the then Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut, was troubling the Trust and its founder with notices frequently issued. It was in the said context that they approached B.P. Gupta, Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur (the third respondent) for redressal of their grievances. Appellant claims to have forwarded a complaint to the DIG of CBI, New Delhi on 6.3.1996, complaining that at the behest of Respondent No.3 the Trust people including the appellant contacted Janardhan Gupta (the son of the third respondent) who demanded Rs. 20 lacs to be paid to his father as bribe and after a lot of haggling, the amount was reduced to Rs.10 lacs and that the amount should be paid to the third respondent within two days. What happened thereafter, according to the version of the appellant, can be summarised as follows: On 8.3.1996, CBI made all preparations for a trap.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges Dr. Chandrachud, B.V. Nagarathna
Date of Judgment: 08 Oct 2021
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 37
Relevancy Score: 68.3
In the overall perspective therefore neither the income tax returns nor the orders passed in the proceedings relatable thereto, either definitively attest the lawfulness of the sources of income of the accused persons or are of any avail to them to satisfactorily account the disproportionateness of their pecuniary resources and properties as mandated by Section 13(1)(e) of the Act. […] 200. In Vishwanath Chaturvedi (3) v. Union of India [Vishwanath Chaturvedi (3) v. Union of India, (2007) 4 SCC 380 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 302] , a writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking an appropriate writ for directing the Union of India to take appropriate action to prosecute R-2 to R-5 under the 1988 Act for having amassed assets disproportionate to the known sources of income by misusing their power and authority. The respondents were the then sitting Chief Minister of U.P. and his relatives. Having noticed that the basic issue was with regard to alleged investments and sources of such investments, Respondents 2 to 5 were ordered by this Court to file copies of income tax and wealth tax returns of the relevant assessment years which was done. It was pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that the net assets of the family though were Rs 9,22,72,000, as per the calculation made by the official valuer, the then value of the net assets came to be Rs 24 crores. It was pleaded on behalf of the respondents that income tax returns had already been filed and the matters were pending before the authorities concerned and all the payments were made by cheques, and thus the allegation levelled against them were baseless. It was observed that the minuteness of the details furnished by the parties and the income tax returns and assessment PART E orders, sale deeds, etc. were necessary to be carefully looked into and analyzed only by an independent agency with the assistance of chartered accountants and other accredited engineers and valuers of the property. It was observed that the Income Tax Department was concerned only with the source of income and whether the tax was paid or not and, therefore, only an independent agency or CBI could, on court direction, determine the question of disproportionate assets. CBI was thus directed to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the assets of all the respondents and to take further action in the matter after scrutinizing as to whether a case was made out or not.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges R.S. Bachawat, S.M. Sikri, V. Ramaswami
Date of Judgment: 28 Apr 1969
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 4
Relevancy Score: 68.24
An investigation followed and as a result of the investigation the appellant was chargesheeted for offences under Sections 5(1)(a) to 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The specific charge levelled against the appellant was to taking illegal gratification from the contractors in the matter of classification of soils and of conspiracy with the contractOrs. There was no direct evidence led on behalf of the prosecution to show that there was payment by any of the contractors to the appellant of any illegal gratification. The trial Judge after examining the prosecution evidence held that there was no satisfactory proof that the appellant classified the soils in the earthwork in a higher category than what it should have bean and thereby made illegal gain to himself or the contractOrs. But the trial Judge convicted the appellant of criminal misconduct on the application of the presumption arising under Section 5(3) of Act 2 of 1917, that is, on the ground that the appellant had pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known source of income. The trial Judge sentenced the appellant for rigorous imprisonment for six months. Subject to this modifications, the High Court dismissed the appeal. 4. It was contended in the first place on behalf of the appellant that the lower Courts were wrong in holding that the assets found in possession of the appellant were disproportionate to the sources disclosed and that the presumption under Section 5(3) of the Act could be resorted in the circumstances of this case. In our opinion, the contention put forward by the appellant is well-founded and must be accepted as correct. According to Ex. 1/6, the statement of assets dated 15 February 1958 three houses were purchased under sale-deeds Exs. 6,6/1 and 6/2 in the name of the children of the appellant, the total consideration for the sale-deeds being Rs. 1,35.000. On 3 June 1958, the appellant purchased National Savings Certificates worth Rs. 1,25,000 and a treasury certificate for Rs. 25.000. On 16 October 1958, the appellant purchased a car worth Rs. 17,000. Hence, the total acquisitions made by the appellant between 5 August 1967 and 16 October 1968 exceed Rs. 3 lakhs in value. The explanation of the appellant was that the acquisitions were made out of family funds and the car was purchased out of the money which was given to him by his wife.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges Dr. Chandrachud, B.V. Nagarathna
Date of Judgment: 08 Oct 2021
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 3
Relevancy Score: 68.2
There are four tabulated statements in the FIR. Statement A provides that the respondents’ assets at the beginning of the check period (1 April 2010) were in the amount of Rs 1,35,26,066 while Statement-B indicates that their assets at the end of the check period (29 February 2016) were Rs 6,90,51,066. Hence, their assets earned during the check period (i.e., between 1 April 2010 to 29 February 2016) were alleged to be to the tune of Rs 5,55,25,000. According to Statement-C, the respondents’ income during the check period was Rs 4,84,76,630 while according to Statement-D their expenditure during the check period was Rs 40,33,322. Hence, the respondents are alleged to have acquired assets/pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs 5,95,58,322 (adding the Assets, Rs 5,55,25,000 and Expenditure, Rs 40,33,322) against an Income of Rs 4,84,76,630 earned during the check period. Therefore, their Disproportionate Assets 13 during the check period were computed at Rs 1,10,81,692, which is 22.86 per cent of the total income earned by them. The computation reflected in the FIR is as follows: “ACB” Calculated by adding the Assets and Expenditure during the check period, and subtracting the Income from it. PART B “Calculation of Disproportionate Assets:- Sl. Particulars of Assets Amount No. (Rs.) A. Assets at the beginning of the check 13,526,066 period B. Assets at the end of the check period 69,051,066 C. Assets during the check period (B-A) 55,525,000 D. Income during the check period 48,476,630 E. Expenditure during the check period 4,033,322 F. Assets + Expenditure Income (DA) 11,081,692 DA percentage 22.86% ” On the basis of the FIR dated 20 September 2017, the CBI ACB Chennai registered a case 14 against the respondents for offences punishable under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the PC Act and Section 109 of the IPC. 6 On 5 March 2018, the respondents filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the FIR. In their writ petition, the respondents averred that: (i) the FIR is politically motivated since the second respondent belongs to a rival political party; (ii) the appellant did not conduct a Preliminary Enquiry before registering the FIR; and (iii) the particulars in the FIR did not constitute an offence and would not, as they stand, result in the respondents’ conviction. Further, the petition pointed out inconsistencies in the FIR where certain assets had been allegedly over-valued while income had been under- valued, without any explanation. Hence, the petition before the High Court urged that the FIR was liable to be quashed.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges K.J. Shetty, B.C. Ray, L.M. Sharma, Jagdish Saran Verma
Date of Judgment: 25 Jul 1991
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 80
Relevancy Score: 67.85
Adroitly, as observed in Swamy case (at 469) and reiterated in Wasudeo case (at 683), the prosecution cannot, in the very nature of things, be expect- ed to know the affairs of a public servant found in posses- sion of resources of property disproportionate to his known sources of income. It is for him to explain. Such a statute placing burden on the accused cannot be regarded as unrea- sonable, unjust or unfair. Nor it can be regarded as con- trary to Article 21 of the Constitution as contended for the appellant. It may be noted that the principle re-affirmed in Woolmington case is not a universal rule to be followed in every case. The principle is applied in the absence of statutory provision to the contrary. (See the observations of Lord Templeman and Lord Griffiths in Rig. v. Hunt, [1986] 3 WLR 1115 at 1118 and 1129). Counsel for the appellant however, submitted that there is no law prohibiting a public servant having in his posses- sion assets disproportionate to his known sources of income and such possession becomes an offence of criminal miscon- duct only when the accused is unable to account for it. Counsel seems to be focussing too much only on one part of clause (e) of Section 5(1). The first part of clause (e) of Section 5(1) as seen earlier relates to the proof of assets possessed by the public servant. When the prosecution proves that the public servant possesses assets disproportionate to his known sources of income the offence of criminal miscon- duct is attributed to the public servant. However, it is open to the public servant to satisfactorily account for such disproportionality of assets. But that is not the same thing to state that there is no offence till the public servant is able to account for the excess of assets. If one possesses assets beyond his legitimate means, it goes with- out saying that the excess is out of illgotten gain. The assets are not drawn like nitrogen from the air. It has to be acquired for which means are necessary. It is for the public servant to prove the source of income or the means by which he acquired the assets. That is the substance of clause (e) of Section 5(1). In the view that we have taken as to the nature of the offence created under clause (e), it may not be necessary to examine the contention relating to ingredient of the of- fence.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges A.S. Bopanna, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Date of Judgment: 11 Oct 2022
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 1
Relevancy Score: 67.84
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. _______OF 2022 ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL) NO. 1568 OF 2022 VIJAY RAJMOHAN ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBI, ACB, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.J. 1. Leave Granted. 2. Two important questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal. The first question is whether an order of the Appointing Authority granting sanction for prosecution of a public servant under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 19881, would be rendered illegal on the ground of acting as per dictation if it consults the Central Vigilance Commission for its decision. The second question is whether the period of three months (extendable Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT Date: 2022.10.11 17:04:06 IST Reason: 1 hereinafter referred to as ‘the PC Act’. Page 1 of 30 by one more month for legal consultation2) for the Appointing Authority to decide upon a request for sanction is mandatory or not. The further question in this context, is whether the criminal proceedings can be quashed if the decision is not taken within the mandatory period. Facts leading to the filing of this Appeal 3. The Appellant challenges the order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras3 allowing a criminal revision petition filed by the State against an order of the Trial Court4, discharging the Appellant on the ground that the order of sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act, is vitiated due to non-application of mind by the sanctioning authority. 4. The Appellant is an official of the Central Secretarial Service, Government of India. During the period between 01.01.2005 to 31.10.2012, when his official postings were in New Delhi and Bangalore, he is alleged to have acquired assets that were disproportionate to his known sources of income. As of 31.12.2012, he and his relatives were found to be in possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 79,17,593/-. An FIR came 2 As per the 2018 Amendment through the 2nd Proviso to Section 19(1) of the PC Act. 3 Criminal Revision Petition No. 349 of 2019 dated 06.01.2022. 4 Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3908 of 2018 in C.C. No. 3 of 2018 dated 13.12.2018. Page 2 of 30 to be registered on 20.11.2012 by the Central Bureau of Investigation5 against the Appellant, his father, and his mother under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 18606, read with Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the PC Act. 5. On 08.09.2015, the CBI completed investigation and sought sanction from the appointing authority, the Department of Personnel and Training7, for prosecuting the Appellant. As the questions arising for consideration relate to the manner and the time taken for granting sanction for prosecution, the relevant facts will have to be mentioned in detail. They are as follows.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges K.C. Das Gupta, S.K. Das, M. Hidayatullah
Date of Judgment: 28 Aug 1963
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 5
Relevancy Score: 67.66
According to the prosecution the total assets held by the appellant, and his wife, Dava Kaur, and his son Bhupinder Singh on his behalf, on December 7, 1952 amounted to Rs. 1,47,502/12/-, while his total emoulments upto the period of the charge would come to about Rs. 80,000/-. The main defence of the appellant as regards this allegation of possession of pecuniary resources and property disproportionate to his known sources of income was that the property and pecuniary resources held by his wife and son were not held on his behalf and that what, was in his possession amounted to less than Rs. 50,000/- and can by no means be said to be disproportionate to his known 41--2 S. C. India/64. sources of income. In denying the charge against him the appellant also contended that false evidence had been given by the three partners and false and fictitious books prepared by them in support of their own false testimony. The learned Special judge rejected the defence contention that the account books on which the prosecution relied had not been kept regularly in the course of business and held the entries therein to be relevant under s. 34 of the Indian Evidence Act. He accepted the defence contention that evidence of the partners who were in the position of accomplices required independent corroboration and also that the account books maintained by themselves would not amount to independent corroboration. Independent corroboration was however in the opinion of the learned Judge furnished by the fact that some admitted and proved items of payment were interspersed in the entire account books. The learned judge also accepted the prosecution story as regards the possession of pecuniary resources and property by the appellant's wife and his son on his behalf and adding these to what was in the appellant's own possession he found that the total pecuniary resources and property in his possession or in the possession of his wife and son were disproportionate to his known sources of income, and that such possession had not been satisfactorily accounted for. He concluded that the presumption under s. 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was attracted. On all these findings he found the appellant guilty of the charge for criminal misconduct in the discharge of his duties and convicted and sentenced him as, stated above.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges S. Ratnevel Pandian, R.M. Sahai
Date of Judgment: 17 Feb 1992
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 2
Relevancy Score: 67.49
5. Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant took us very meticulously through the recorded evidence and strenuously contended that the High Court has gone wrong in rendering its finding that there is disproportionate asset to the tune of Rs. 2,37,842.00 and that the evidence available on record is more than sufficient to satisfy this Court that the High Court has committed an error in arriving at the figure by conveniently ignoring certain material pieces of evidence, standing in favour of the appellant and has also wrongly holding that some of the items of the landed properties as benami in complete violation of the law. Now we shall take up certain items of assets one by one, the value of which according to the appellant, should be deducted from the value of the disproportionate assets, as found by the High Court and find out whether the claim of the appellant is supported by reliable evidence. Before adverting to the facts of the case and considering the submissions of the learned Counsel, we shall give a brief note of the law on this subject. 6. An analysis of Section 5(1)(e) of the Act, 1947 which corresponds to Section 13(1)(e) of the new Act of 1988 shows that is not the mere acquisition of property that constitutes an offence under the provisions of the Act but it is the failure to satisfactorily account for such possession that makes the possession objectionable as offending the law. 7. To substantiate a charge under Section 3(1)(c) of the Act, the prosecution must prove the following ingredients, namely, (1) the prosecution must establish that the accused is a public servant, (2) the nature and extent of the pecuniary resources or property which were found in his possession (3) it must be proved as to what were his known sources of income, i.e. known to the prosecution and (4) it must prove, quite objectively, that such resources or property found in possession of the accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income. Once the above ingredients are satisfactorily established, the offence of criminal misconduct under Section 5(1)(e) is complete, unless the accused is able to account for such resources or property. In other words, only after the prosecution has proved the required ingredients, the burden of satisfactorily accounting for the possession of such resources or property shifts to the accused.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges Dr. Chandrachud, B.V. Nagarathna
Date of Judgment: 08 Oct 2021
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 9
Relevancy Score: 67.36
Further, the FIR has been filed against the second respondent in Chennai even though he has never held any public office there and no cause of action arises there; and b. The complaint is completely false since the respondents do not have any Disproportionate Assets in the check period but rather have an excess of income. To support this, the following chart has been filed along with the counter-affidavit of the first respondent: SL Description Amount as Actual Revised DA (in per FIR (in Amount (in Rs.) Rs.) Rs.) A1/A2 1,10,81,692 - - Disproportionate Assets ● Check Period 01.04.2010 – 29.02.2016 1. STATEMENT B SL.NO. 5,15,50,000 4,29,71,800 1,10,81,692 - 6&7 85,78,200 CBI has valued the Construction cost of =25,03,492 Sl.6-7 property of STM- B as Rs.5,15,50,000/- [RS. 2,59,50,000 + RS. 2,56,00,000]. Even as per the STM B SL6-7, the value is taken from the report dated 11.03.2016 submitted by A1 to her department vide letter dated 14.03.2016. ● The total value of construction as per the said report is Rs.4,14,21,800/- PART C [Rs.4,14,21,800 + Rs.15,50,000 = Rs.4,29,71,800] [Rs.5,15,50,000 - Rs.4,29,71,800 = Rs.85,78,200] 2. STM. B SL-26 8,00,000 - 8,00,000 25,03,492 - Double Entry of 8,00,000 Rs.8,00,000/- in re Bangalore property, sold =17,03,492 during the check period (admitted by CBI) is wrongly shown as assets at the end of check period i.e., in Stm C Sl-9. 3. STM. B SL-31 10,00,000 - 10,00,000 17,03,492 - Double Entry in re. for 10,00,000 purchase and erection of one Oscan escalator =7,03,492 at Jubilee Prop. Already part of overall valuation/ construction cost for Stm-B Sl. 6 &7) 4. STM. C SL-9 72,50,000 1,00,00,000 7,03,492 - Arbitrary Deduction in re 27,50,000 Bangalore property ( see Sr No. 26 of STM. = -20,46,508 B) was admittedly sold for a sale consideration of 1 cr, but only Rs.72.5 Lks is shown as sale price in STM. C. [Rs. 1,00,00,000 – Rs.72,50,000 = Rs.27,50,000] Thus, Asset is not - 20,46,508 disproportionate to income by: (x) The High Court has not solely relied upon the documents produced by the respondents, while ignoring the material elicited by the CBI through its investigation. The documents produced by the respondent (Income Tax Returns, et al) are lawful sources to determine the source of one’s income, PART C and can be relied upon while determining whether a ‘public servant’ under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act has accumulated Disproportionate Assets in comparison to their lawful income. Hence, the High Court could have legitimately assessed the case of Disproportionate Assets against the respondents by relying on such documents.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges K.T. Thomas, S.N. Variava
Date of Judgment: 17 Aug 2001
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 2
Relevancy Score: 67.29
The team of CBI officers reached the house of one Roshan Lal who was the treasurer of the Trust and waited for the opportune time to hand over the bribe amount to the third respondent. A micro-cassette supplied by the CBI to the appellant with which he recorded the conversation between the appellant and Janardhan Gupta (the fourth respondent) and his father (the third respondent). At the pre-arranged time a bag containing the cash was handed over to Sudhanshu Gupta, another son of the third respondent,(he is fifth respondent in this appeal) at his residence in the presence of the fourth respondent. The signal was then transmitted to the CBI officers who made a swoop and surrounded the house and caught the fifth respondent. The bag containing the cash was recovered from below the bed of the house of the third respondent. The investigation thereupon was commenced by the CBI. When the investigation concluded the CBI filed its final report before the Special Judge, Anti Corruption (Central) Lucknow. In the final report the case was given a totally reverse picture. The CBI exonerated the third, fourth and the fifth respondents in full measure and wanted the court to initiate prosecution proceedings against the appellant for the offence under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. The CBI took the stand in strident tone that the complaint made by the appellant is not only false but it was aimed at deterring the Income Tax officials from discharging their functions fearlessly. It was a calculated move to forestall the strong measures devised against Swami Rama and the Trust founded by him, according to the CBI. The Special Judge on receipt of the aforesaid final report issued notice to the appellant and after hearing him ordered the CBI to re-investigate the matter. The operative part of that order is extracted below: Under these circumstances perusal of the final report submitted shows that the investigation of the case was not properly conducted and this final report was submitted without properly going through the provisions contained in the Cr.P.C. and Prevention of Corruption Act. It is also necessary to point out that preliminary investigation was conducted by Sh.V.K. Gupta, DIG (CBI). In my view, in this situation it would be proper that this case is again investigated by DIG level officer.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges M.R. Shah, J.B. Pardiwala
Date of Judgment: 28 Apr 2023
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 2
Relevancy Score: 67.16
6. On 30.06.2006, the office of Superintendent of Police (CBI) was in receipt of the following information: (i) D. Dwarakanadha Reddy (A-1) was holding the post of Appraiser, Customs Department since 2004, and his main income was his salary. (ii) His wife D. Sujana Reddy (A-2) has no agricultural land in her name and does business in the name of M/s Sujana Engineers. (iii) That the couple had acquired assets worth Rs. 64, 41, 690.92 lakh between 01.04.2001 and 31.03.2005, however their combined income during the said period was Rs. 50, 95, 371.57/-, comprising of salary income of A-1, agricultural income of A-2, business income of A-2, bank interest, housing loan from the Andhra Bank, capital gain on sale of property, rewards given to A- 1 etc. (iv) During the period between 01.04.2001 and 31.03.2005, they incurred expenditure of Rs. 12, 74, 347.16/-, leaving them with the savings of Rs. 38, 21, 024.41/-. (v) Therefore, their total disproportionate assets were worth Rs. 26, 20, 666.51/- as on 31.03.2005. In such circumstances referred to above, an FIR in RC MA 1 2006 A 0027 was registered by the CBI under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the 1988 Act’) along with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’). 7. On 24.12.2008, the CBI/ACB filed an application before the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, with a prayer to close the proceedings and return the documents for the purpose of regular departmental action against the accused No. 1 (respondent No. 3). The application stated inter alia as follows: “After completion of investigation it has come to light that the accused cannot be prosecuted. Hence, Final Report u/s. 173 Cr.PC is being filed which may be accepted.” 8. It was further prayed that the documents seized during the course of investigation be returned so that the same could be used in the regular departmental action that may be initiated against the accused No. 1. 9. The aforesaid application filed by the CBI was taken up by the Special Court and the following order dated 29.01.2009 came to be passed: “ORDER This petition is filed by the Petitioner/Complainant u/s. 173 Cr.PC praying to close the FIR and to retain the documents collected during the investigation to be used in the Regular Departmental Action against A1 . 1. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the FIR, report and connected records. Reason stated in the report is convincing.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges Bhuvneshwar P. Sinha, P.B. Gajendragadkar, K.N. Wanchoo
Date of Judgment: 21 May 1959
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 9
Relevancy Score: 66.72
In our opinion, those cases have no bearing upon the charge against the appellant in this case, because the section requires the accused person to " satisfactorily account." for the possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. Ordinarily, an accused person is entitled to acquittal if he can account for honest possession of property which has been proved to have been recently stolen (see illustration (a) to s. 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872). The rule of law is that if there is a prima facie explanation of the accused that he came by the stolen goods in an honest way, the inference of guilty knowledge is displaced. This is based upon the well- established principle that if there is a doubt in the mind of the court as to a necessary ingredient of an offence, the benefit of that doubt must go to the accused. But the Legislature has advisedly used the expression "satisfactorily account". , The emphasis must be on the word " satisfactorily ", and the Legislature has, thus, deliberately cast a burden on the accused not only to offer a plausible explanation as to how he came by his large wealth, but also to satisfy the court that his explanation was worthy of acceptance. Another argument bearing on the same aspect of the case, is that the prosecution has not led evidence to show as to what are the known sources of the appellant's income. In this connection, our attention was invited to the evidence of the Investigating Officers, and with reference to that evidence, it was contended that those officers have not said, in terms, as to what were the known sources of income of the accused, or that the salary was the only source of his income. Now, the expression " known sources of income " must have reference to sources known to the prosecution on a thorough investigation of the case. It was not, and it could not be, contended that " known sources of income " means sources known to the accused. The prosecution cannot, in the very nature of things, be expected to know the affairs of an accused person. Those will be matters " specially within the knowledge" of the accused, within the meaning of s. 106 of the Evidence Act. The prosecution can only lead evidence, as it has done in the instant case, to show that the accused was known to earn his living by service under the Government during the material period.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges Surya Kant, J.B. Pardiwala
Date of Judgment: 05 Sep 2022
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 3
Relevancy Score: 66.61
The total income of the accused and his family members and expenditure of the accused and his family during the above said period (i.e.1.1.2002 to 29.2.2004) have been tentatively assessed as Rs.8,84,486 and 11,00, 198 respectively and hence there was no likely savings for the above said period and on the contrary there was an excess expenditure over the income of the accused to the extent of Rs.2,15,712/-. There are grounds to believe that the aforesaid assets are for beyond and disproportionate to the known sources of income of the accused for the above said period to the extent of Rs.16,82,142 (Rs.14,66,430+2,15,712). The above information discloses an offence of criminal misconduct by public servant punishable u/ s 13(2) r /w 13(1)(e) of prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against the accused and requires a detailed investigation. I am therefore, registering a case in Cr.No.9/AC/2005/SL/SU against the accused for the above said offence for the purpose of taking up investigation. (SdXXX) (K.PERIYASAMY) DSP, V&AC, Spl.Cell, Salem.” 9. It appears that vide the letter dated 16.10.2007 the investigating officer called for the explanation from the Respondent No. 1 as regards the allegations levelled in the FIR. 10. The Respondent No. 1 vide his letter dated 1.11.2007 offered his explanation stating that he does not possess or had acquired any assets disproportionate to the known source of his income. The Respondent No. 1 also placed on record the income tax returns filed by his wife from 1990 onwards and that of the partnership firm too from 1993. 11. It appears that in the course of investigation the role of the Respondent No. 2 as the wife of the Respondent No. 1 also surfaced as an abettor. 12. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Agency filed charge-sheet in the Court of the Special Judge, Salem for the offences enumerated above. The filing of the charge-sheet culminated in the registration of the Special Criminal Case No. 36/2008 in the Court of the Special Judge, Salem. 13. In such circumstances referred to above, the Respondents preferred Crl. M.P. Nos. 87 and 86 of 2014 resply under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘the CrPC’) seeking discharge from the trial essentially on the ground of lack of any prima facie case against them.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges Surya Kant, J.B. Pardiwala
Date of Judgment: 05 Sep 2022
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 16
Relevancy Score: 66.3
Prejudice is also caused by the finding of the Special judge to the effect that there are no materials/ evidence to prove that the second accused has separate and independent source of income.” (Emphasis supplied) In such circumstances referred to above, the learned counsel prayed that there being no merit in the two appeals filed by the State, those may be dismissed. 31. If we have to give a fair idea as regards the case put up by the Prosecution against the accused persons, we may do so as under:- (a) There are 14 items shown in the Statement No. 1, i.e. Assets and pecuniary sources that stood to the credit of the accused and his family members at the beginning of the check period i.e., 01.01.2002 such as lands, house sites, shares, jewels and other movables valued at Rs.3,46,006-00. (b) There are 21 items shown in the Statement No. II i.e., assets and pecuniary source that stood to the credit of the accused and his family members at the end of the check period as on 31.03.2004, valued at Rs. 31,69,498-00. (c) There are 6 items shown in the Statement No. III as income derived by the accused and his family members during the check period i.e., 01-01-2002 to 31-03-2004, calculated at Rs. 9,97,888-00. (d) There are 15 items shown in the Statement No. IV i.e., expenditure incurred by the accused and his family members during the check period from 01-01-2002 to 31-03-2004 as family consumption expenditure, education, electricity charges, housing loan, LIC premiums, telephone charges etc. is calculated at Rs. 6,16,376-50. (e) The value of assets acquired by the accused and his family members at the end of the check period i.e., 31-03-2004 as shown in Statement No. V is at Rs. 28,23,492-00 (i.e. Rs. 31,69,498 (-) Rs. 3,46,006-00). (f) The likely savings of the accused and his family members during the check period as shown in Statement No. VI is arrived at Rs. 3,81,512-00 (i.e.,) Rs. 9,97,888-00 (-) Rs. 6,16,376-50). (g) The value of disproportionate assets acquired by the accused and his family members as shown in the Statement No. VII is calculated at Rs. 24,41,980-00. (h) The percentage of disproportionate assets acquired by the accused and his family members to the known sources of their income is calculated at 244.71% (Rs.24,41,980-00 divided by Rs.9,97,888-00 multiplied by 100). Thus, in view of the aforesaid, the case of the prosecution is that the accused No. 1 (public servant) was found to be in possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of his income to the extent to Rs. 24,41,980/- as on 31.03.2004. ANALYSIS 32. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for our consideration is whether the High Court committed any error in discharging both the accused from the charges levelled against them? 33. We have no hesitation in observing that the impugned orders passed by the High Court are utterly incomprehensible.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges A.P. Sen, O. Chinnappa Reddy, Baharul Islam
Date of Judgment: 06 May 1981
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 4
Relevancy Score: 66.21
Once these are established, the offence of criminal misconduct under section 5(1)(e) would be complete. The burden then shifts to the accused to substantially account for possession by him of assets disproportionate to his income. The extent and nature of burden of proof resting upon the public servant cannot be higher than establishing his case by a preponderance of probability. [683 A-E] In the instant case the High Court has placed an impossible burden on the prosecution to disprove all possible sources of income which were within the special knowledge of the accused. The prosecution cannot in the nature of things be expected to know the affairs of a public servant found in possession of resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income that is his salary, because these are matters specially within his knowledge, within the meaning of section 106 of the Evidence Act. The phrase "burden of proof" in section 106 of Evidence Act is clearly used in the secondary sense, namely the duty of introducing evidence. The nature and extent of the burden cast on the accused is well settled. The accused is not bound to prove his innocence beyond all reasonable doubt. All that he need do is to bring out a preponderance of probability. [684 B] On the proved circumstances there was a preponderance of probability that the property found in the respondent's house could be the property left by his father-in-law. There is overwhelming evidence on record that the respondent's father-in-law was a man of affluent circumstances, being a paiorkar of a Zamindar and that he had amassed considerable wealth, more so because his two sisters were the kept mistresses of the Zamindar. On the death of the Zamindar his father-in-law stayed with the respondent. Also, the respondent's father had a liquor shop besides forest contracts. The evidence led in the case was sufficient to create a doubt whether the respondent was in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges Dr. Chandrachud, Ms. Kohli, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Date of Judgment: 14 Sep 2022
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 1
Relevancy Score: 66.13
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1562 OF 2022 ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL) NO. 9601 OF 2016 KANCHAN KUMAR ...APPELLANT VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR ...RESPONDENT JUDGMENT PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is against the concurrent dismissals by the Trial1 and the High Court2 of the application for discharge filed by the Appellant under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19733. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by CHETAN KUMAR Date: 2022.09.14 12:21:42 IST Reason: 1 Special Judge (Vigilance), Patna, in Special Case No. 9 of 2000 dated 28.03.2016. 2 High Court of Judicature at Patna, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 23031 of 2016 dated 05.10.2016. 3 hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’ Page 1 of 16 3. Facts leading to the filing of this Appeal: The Appellant joined the Bihar State Financial Corporation4 in the capacity of an Assistant General Manager on 19.07.1974. After a period of thirteen years, in 1987, a complaint came to be filed against the Appellant for having allegedly purchased three houses and two pieces of land in Bihar, which according to the complainant, was disproportionate to Appellant’s known sources of income. This complaint was inquired into, and after a detailed investigation, the allegations were found to be false. Except for a residential house in Patna, which the Appellant had purchased on 29.08.1988 for Rs. 2,26,500 with the help of a loan from the BSFC, no other assets could be traced to the ownership of the Appellant. However, despite finding no merit in the allegation, the investigation was kept pending. 4. In the meanwhile, life moved on and in 1996, the Appellant joined the Oil and Natural Gas Commission5 as Deputy General Manager on deputation, keeping his lien with the BSFC. Four years after joining ONGC, an FIR came to be registered against him on 21.02.2000, under Sections 13(l)(d) and 13(2) of the 4 hereinafter referred to as ‘the BSFC’. 5 hereinafter referred to as ‘the ONGC’. Page 2 of 16 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 6, on the same allegation that he possessed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. These alleged assets were purportedly acquired during his tenure with the BSFC, and consequently, the check period in the FIR was considered from the date he joined BSFC, i.e., 19.07.1974 to the date of registration of the residential house purchased by him, i.e., 29.08.1988. The Appellant wrote a letter to the Director General of Police (Vigilance), Patna, on 18.04.2002, raising a grievance that the calculations in the FIR undervalued his income and overvalued his assets, thus depicting a false and inflated account of his expenditure. 5. Eventually a charge sheet came to be filed on 11.09.2007, i.e., about seven years after the registration of the FIR, and in fact, twenty years after the complaint on this very allegation was found to be false by the authorities.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges P. Sathasivam, M.Y. Eqbal
Date of Judgment: 09 May 2013
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 5
Relevancy Score: 65.81
22) It is also pointed out that M/s Indus Techzone Pvt. Ltd., availed Rs. 175 crores of loans by mortgaging about 75 acres of land which is shown to have been spent for the development of project. The investigating agency is of the opinion that a major chunk of the funds was diverted/misappropriated by way of fake work orders/RA bills. 23) No doubt, Mr. Salve, learned senior counsel for the appellant pointed out the different stand of the CBI from court to court, he also commented upon the reasoning and the ultimate conclusion of the trial Judge, namely, the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad for rejecting the bail application of the appellant. It is true that after highlighting the stand taken by the prosecution as well as the right of the accused and taking note of the various aspects, the trial Judge was of the view that if the appellant is enlarged on bail, he will influence the witnesses, since some of them are on his pay rolls, and thereby investigation will suffer a set back. Even if it is accepted that the statements have been recorded from those employees, as rightly pointed out by the counsel for the CBI, the matter is not going to end with their statements. 24) Mr. Salve, after taking us through various documents/correspondences from the Government of Ras Al Khaima submitted that in view of the contents of the same and the specific stand of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, there is no basis for the claim made by the CBI. Though we were taken through all those details, it is not proper for this Court to make a comment about the acceptability or otherwise at this juncture and those materials ought to be considered only at the trial. 25) As pointed out by Mr. Ashok Bhan, learned senior counsel for the CBI, after filing of the charge sheet on 13.08.2012, in view of further materials, the CBI started investigation which is permissible under Section 173(8) of the Code to look into the aspects of the involvement of the appellant in M/s Indus Projects Ltd. and its group companies, viz., M/s Lepakshi Knowledge Hub Private Ltd. as well as M/s Indus Techzone Private Limtied. In view of the same, undoubtedly, the investigating agency may require further time to collect all the materials, particularly, the nexus of the appellant with those concerns and the appellant being the beneficiary of the quantum of the amount secured. In the course of the arguments, it is also brought to our notice by learned senior counsel for the CBI that a sitting Minister in-charge of the Ports had nexus with those transactions. Considering all these developments, taking note of various details furnished in the Status Report dated 30.04.2013, we are of the view that though the appellant is in custody for nearly 11 months, at the same time, the claim of the premier investigating agency cannot be underestimated.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges R.P.Sethi, K.T.Thomas
Date of Judgment: 20 Nov 2000
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 1
Relevancy Score: 65.78
CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1997 2000 PETITIONER: STATE BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs. RESPONDENT: SHRI S. BANGARAPPA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/11/2000 BENCH: R.P.Sethi, K.T.Thomas JUDGMENT: L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J J U D G M E N T THOMAS, J. Leave granted. A case has been charge-sheeted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against S. Bangarappa, one time Chief Minister of Karnataka State, alleging that he had amassed wealth grossly disproportionate to his known sources of income during a check period when he held public offices either as Minister or Chief Minister. The offence under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (for short the Act) was pitted against him, read with Section 13(1)(e) thereof on the ground that he was in possession of pecuniary resources and assets so disproportionate that he could not satisfactorily account for them. When respondent (S. Bangarappa) moved the High Court of Karnataka for quashing the said criminal proceedings, a single judge of the High Court, as per the order impugned in this case, quashed the same. This appeal, by special leave, is at the instance of the CBI in challenge of the said order. The check period is nearly a decade (between 9.8.1988 and 31.10.1997) during which the respondent held public offices either as MLA or as a Minister in the State cabinet or as Chief Minister of the State or as a Member of Parliament. According to the CBI the total income which respondent had from all his known sources of income, during the aforesaid period, was around 30 lakhs and after deducting his expenses (which were worked out approximately to be 22 lakhs) he could not have made a saving of more than 7 lakhs of rupees. But the CBI found that during the said period the respondent had acquired assets worth more than Rs.1,16,00,000/- (one crore sixteen lakhs) for which he had no explanation whatsoever. When respondent was brought before the trial court he pleaded for a discharge from the prosecution for which he raised various contentions. The special judge heard arguments at that stage for a long time spreading over to a number of days.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges Pinaki Chandra Ghose, Amitava Roy
Date of Judgment: 14 Feb 2017
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 50
Relevancy Score: 65.77
He further contended that in a disproportionate assets case, the prosecution has to discharge the initial burden to prove that the assets of the accused were disproportionate to the known sources of income. The prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt, the value of the assets possessed by the accused and it has a further burden to show that the properties which were standing in the name of third parties, like A2 to A4 and the companies, were being held benami for the public servant. Once the prosecution discharges this initial burden beyond reasonable doubt, the onus then shifts to the accused to satisfactorily account for the source of such income. He further contended that for the accused, the standard of proof is one based on preponderance of probabilities and it is sufficient for the accused to provide a plausible explanation that is satisfactory to the Court. In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel relied upon the following decisions: V.D. Jhingan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh - (1966) 3 SCR 736 State of Maharashtra Vs. Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar - (1981) 3 SCC 199 Mr. Krishna Reddy Vs. State, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad - (1992) 4 SCC 45 Amba Lal Vs. Union of India - (1961) 1 SCR 933 K. Veeraswami Vs. Union of India & Ors. - (1991) 3 SCC 655 Prithipal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. - (2012) 1 SCC 10 He further contended that in establishing the link between the alleged benamdar and the public servant, the standard of proof required is direct evidence or circumstantial evidence of a clinching nature, which has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidence of a definite character. He further relied upon the decisions of this Court in Jaydayal Poddar (deceased) through L.Rs. & Anr. Vs. Mst. Bibi Hazara, (1974) 1 SCC 3, Krishnanand Agnihotri (supra), Valliammal (D) by L.Rs. Vs. Subramaniam & Ors., (2004) 7 SCC 233, and Heirs of Vrajlal J. Ganatra Vs. Heirs of Parshottam S. Shah, (1996) 4 SCC 490. The learned senior counsel, next dwelt upon the purport of “income received from any lawful source” and drew our attention to Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act, which reads as follows: 13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant – (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,- xxx xxx xxx xxx (e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges Dr. Chandrachud, B.V. Nagarathna
Date of Judgment: 08 Oct 2021
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 33
Relevancy Score: 65.75
The FIR in the present case discloses an offence under Section 13(1)(e) which, prior to its amendment through the Amending Act 16 of 2018 with effect from 26 July 2018, provided as follows: “13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.—(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,— […] (e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568, para 18; Bharat Parikh v. CBI, (2008) 10 SCC 109, para 19; Indu Jain v. State of M.P., (2008) 15 SCC 341, para 39; Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (P) Ltd. v. CBI, (2018) 16 SCC 299, paras 33-34 PART E Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “known sources of income” means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant.” 43 The ambit of the provision has been explained by a two Judge Bench of this Court in Kedari Lal (supra). Justice U U Lalit held thus: “10. The expression “known sources of income” in Section 13(1)(e) of the Act has two elements, first, the income must be received from a lawful source and secondly, the receipt of such income must have been intimated in accordance with the provisions of law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to the public servant. In N. Ramakrishnaiah [N. Ramakrishnaiah v. State of A.P., (2008) 17 SCC 83 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 454] , while dealing with the said expression, it was observed : (SCC pp. 86-87, para 17) “17. ‘6. … Qua the public servant, whatever return he gets from his service, will be the primary item of his income. [Other income which can conceivably be] income qua the public servant, will be in the regular receipt from (a) his property, or (b) his investment.’ [Ed. : As observed in State of M.P. v. Awadh Kishore Gupta, (2004) 1 SCC 691 at p. 697 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 353, para 6.] ” The categories so enumerated are illustrative. Receipt by way of share in the partition of ancestral property or bequest under a will or advances from close relations would come within the expression “known sources of income” provided the second condition stands fulfilled that is to say, such receipts were duly intimated to the authorities as prescribed.” (emphasis supplied) 44 In the present case, the respondents have filed before us their Income Tax Returns, statements under the CCS Rules, affidavits under the RP Act and all other document filed before the Telangana High Court as well. Based on these PART E documents, the respondents have urged that the calculation of their income, expenditure and value of assets during the check period in the FIR is incorrect.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges M. K. Mukherjee, K. T. Thomas
Date of Judgment: 03 Sep 1997
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 1
Relevancy Score: 65.65
PETITIONER: STATE REP. BY THE C.B.I. Vs. RESPONDENT: ANIL SHARMA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/09/1997 BENCH: M. K. MUKHERJEE, K. T. THOMAS ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T Thomas J. Leave granted. This appeal is by the central Bureau of Investigation (`CBI' for shot) assailing the pre-arrest order granted by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in favour of the responded under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Respondent was a former Minister of the Himachal Pradesh State Government and he held the office for about three years. Besides that, he is a member of the Legislative Assembly of that State also. His father Sukram was Union Minister for Telecommunications. CBI has been investigating a case against respondent for offence under Sections 13 of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1998 with the allegation that respondent approached the High Court of Himachal Pradesh for an order of anticipatory bail. Over- ruing all the objecting raised by the CBI, a learned Single Judge of the High Court granted the order Subject to the conditions that respondent shall not go aboard without prior permission of the Court, and shall surrender his passport to the CBI etc. Accusation made against respondent, as at present, are inter alia, that he had acquired wealth to the tune of Rs.16,65,000/- as against his known sources of income which could not reach even half of that. CBI further alleges that the assets have been made by the responded through illegal means and "there is clear-cut evidence pointing to the transfer of assists by Shri Sukhram in the name his son". According to the CBI, respondent's is a clear case of corruption in high places and the order of anticipatory bail should never have been granted in such a case. We heard Sri K.N Bhat, Additional solicitor General who argued for the CBI and Shri R. K. Jain senior Advocate who argued for the respondent. We felt the need to go through the Case-Diary which was made available to us in a sealed cover. We perused that. Additional solicitor General contended that High Court has gone wholly wrong in existing the description in favour of the respondent.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges K. Ramaswamy, B.P. Jeevan Reddy, B.L Hansaria
Date of Judgment: 01 Nov 1995
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 4
Relevancy Score: 65.58
Obviously, the appropriate authority adopted the latter course and gave the benefit of promotion to the appellant. Such an action would not stand as an impediment to take pending disciplinary action to its logical conclusion. The advantage of promotion gained by the delinquent officer would be no impediment to take appropriate decision and to pass an order consistent with the finding of proved misconduct. The next question is whether the charge of being in possession of assets disproportionate to his known source of income is a misconduct. Section 5(1) (e) of the Act (which is equivalent to Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) defines "criminal misconduct". A public servant is said to commit the offences of criminal misconduct if he or any person of his behalf is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession, for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account for. Thus, pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known source of income is a criminal misconduct. In the 1988 Act an explanation has been added to Section 13(1)(e) to explain that "known sources of income" means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provision of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant. The charged officer must be a public servant. He must be found to be in possession of, by himself, or through any person on his behalf, at any time during the period of his office, pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known source of income. If he cannot satisfactorily account thereof, he is said to have committed criminal misconduct. No doubt it s a presumptive finding but that finding is based on three facts. Being a public servant, if at any time, during the period of his office, he is proved to have been in possession, by himself or through any person on his behalf, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known source of income, he is enjoined to satisfactorily account for the same. If he fails to account for, he commits misconduct. Therefore, as in a prosecution laid under Section 5(1)(e) of the Act (equivalent to Section 13(1)(e) of 1988 Act), a public servant is liable to punishment.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges The Justice, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian
Date of Judgment: 24 Mar 2021
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 10
Relevancy Score: 65.4
9.2 Even as held by this Court in the case of Superintendent of Police, CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh (2003) 6 SCC 175, a GD entry recording the information by the informant disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence can be treated as FIR in a given case and the police has the power and jurisdiction to investigate the same. However, in an appropriate case, such as allegations of misconduct of corrupt practice by a public servant, before lodging the first information report and further conducting the investigation, if the preliminary enquiry is conducted to ascertain whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not, no fault can be found. Even at the stage of registering the FIR, what is required to be considered is whether the information given discloses the commission of a cognizable offence and the information so lodged must provide a basis for the police officer to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence. At this stage, it is enough if the police officer on the basis of the information given suspects the commission of a cognizable offence, and not that he must be convinced or satisfied that a cognizable offence has been committed. Despite the proposition of law laid down by this Court in catena of decisions that at the stage of lodging the first information report, the police officer need not be satisfied or convinced that a cognizable offence has been committed, considering the observations made by this Court in the case of P. Sirajuddin (supra) and considering the observations by this Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra) before lodging the FIR, an enquiry is held and/or conducted after following the procedure as per Maharashtra State Anti-corruption & Prohibition Intelligence Bureau Manual, it cannot be said that the same is illegal and/or the police officer, Anti-corruption Bureau has no jurisdiction and/or authority and/or power at all to conduct such an enquiry at pre- registration of FIR stage. 10. In the present case, the office of the Director General, ACB, Maharashtra State, Mumbai had received a complaint against the appellant and his three brothers, wherein various allegations have been made against the appellant with regard to accumulating the assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. At that time, the appellant was a Member and President of the Municipal Council, Katol, District Nagpur. On the basis of the said complaint, the Superintendent of Police, Anti-corruption Bureau, Nagpur initiated a discrete enquiry against the appellant with regard to the allegations in the complaint through the officers working under him. After conducting a discrete enquiry, report dated 27.2.2020 has been submitted to the Superintendent of Police, ACB, Nagpur.
Relevant High Court Judgments
Year From: 1950, Year To: 2024
Year From: 1950, Year To: 2024
Bombay High Court
Preeti Pritam Nagrkar vs Cbi Acb, Mumbai And Anr
Honourable Judges Prithviraj K. Chavan
Date of Judgment: 18 December 2020
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 11
Relevancy Score: 66.23
It has been rightly observed by the Madras High Court that it is not merely the possession of the property disproportionate to the known sources of income that constitutes an offence but it is the failure to satisfactorily account for such possession that 16 of 37 555-2019-Cri.Revn=.doc makes possession objectionable and offending the law. Here, in the case at hand, as can be seen, the applicant herself has come up with a case of her independent sources of income through tuition classes and house rent for which there is no material tendered on record. The ratio can be distinguished accordingly. 34. It is contended by Mr. Venegaonkar that an opportunity has been granted to the applicant pursuant to which she had stated about her sources of income through trading in shares, tuition classes and house rent, however, she could not satisfactorily account for the same. The respondent no.1 - C.B.I. has, therefore, implicated the applicant as an abettor. 35. Mr. Khan has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Inspector of Police, Vishakhapattanam Vs. Surya Sankaram Karri, 2006 (6) Supreme Court Cases 172. In this judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with an appeal filed by State before it impugning the judgment and order of Andhra Pradesh High Court at Hyderabad whereunder the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the respondent under Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.4 lakhs, was set aside. In short, it was a case under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act for acquisition of property by the accused disproportionate to his known sources of income. The property was in the name of accused as well as in the name of his wife. 17 of 37 555-2019-Cri.Revn=.doc The trial Court, taken a view that except one son, no other sons of the accused made contributions to their parents from their income. In appeal, the High Court set aside the conviction. It has been observed that the investigation was illegal and unfair for non-examination of important witnesses and non- consideration of relevant documentary evidence by the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer failed to ascertain correctness of status of accused and his wife before the Income Tax Department.
Patna High Court - Orders
Lalan Prasad Singh @ L.P.Singh vs The Union Of India &Amp; Ors
Honourable Judges Mridula Mishra
Date of Judgment: 1 September 2010
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 2
Relevancy Score: 65.67
It was alleged against the petitioner that within a period ranging from 1.1.1984 to 16.7.2001, he acquired movable and immovable properties to the tune of Rs. 21,50,447/- as against his total known earnings of Rs. 12,28,280/-. After making necessary deductions to the tune of 1/3rd of Rs. 12,28,80/- the savings of the petitioner would come to about Rs. 6,72,3999/- which was disproportionate to his known sources of income and for which he did not furnish satisfactory explanation. 5. The petitioner during the course of investigation as also after the close of it, besides, at the stage of consideration of the issue of granting sanction for prosecuting, made several representations, as may appear from Annexurs-7,8,9 and 10 for consideration of the C.B.I. which was investigating the case as also to the authority competent to sanction his prosecution and submitted that the calculations made by the C.B.I. on disproportionate assets which was allegedly acquired by the petitioner, was all wrong and motivated inasmuch as they added up the assets of the petitioner€Ÿs relatives, such as, his mother-in-law, father-in- law, his wife and others who all had acquired their own personal properties by different means and, as such, his assets never exceeded his known source of income and the allegation of acquiring disproportionate assets through foul means was motivated and false. The petitioner pleaded many facts including the fact that the Inspector of C.B.I., namely, Pravin Kumar was investigating the case and wanted illegal gratification from the petitioner which was not paid to him and, as such, he created non-existent evidences so as to bolstering up the case of the C.B.I. The said Pravin Kumar Inspector was later on trapped in a case of bribery by the C.B.I. itself in Delhi. 6. It appears that the defence statement of the petitioner was not accepted by the C.B.I and they noted that the income of his wife allegedly earned out of embroidery, etc. was fake. Likewise, the recovery of Rs. 1,00,000/-from his house which was claimed by his two relatives, namely, Shri Raj Kumar Singh and Shri Amarnath Singh.
Delhi High Court
Ramnish & Anr. vs Cbi & Ors.
Honourable Judges Suresh Kait
Date of Judgment: 29 March 2016
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 29
Relevancy Score: 65.45
However, to implicate respondent No.2, petitioner No.1 on 17.09.1999 recommended to petitioner No.2 for registration of a preliminary enquiry for disproportionate assets of Rs.8.38 Lac against respondent No.2 during the check period between 01.04.1989 to 04.03.1999. While, computing said disproportionate assets petitioner No.1 included all the expenses prior to check period, i.e., 01.04.1989, but did not include his income prior to 01.04.1989. Moreover, while computing the expenses, the petitioner No.1 even added cost of property which respondent No.2 had procured even before joining the service i.e. on 17.12.1985. The said preliminary enquiry was converted into FIR No.S-19/E0006/1999 on 07.12.1999. After taking sanction against respondent No.2, the charge sheet was filed on 05.12.2002 by clubbing assets belonging to the family members of respondent No.2 in his hands despite the fact that such assets had already been assessed by the Income Tax Department in respect of their respective hands for years together. While, dealing with the validity of the sanction order dated 26.11.2002 in the said disproportionate assets, the Supreme Court while dismissing the Criminal Appeal No.1838/2013 field by the CBI has recorded as under:- "33. It appears from the facts and figures given in the report, particularly from the Income Tax returns / assessment orders of the respondent and his family members, that there has not been a fair assessment regarding the income of the respondent and other family members as shown by them in their income-tax returns and it is far from satisfaction, as is evident from the preliminary enquiry report dated 17.9.1999. Same remained the position regarding the assessment of the value of the apartments purchased by the respondent at Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, if compared with the property purchased by the Indian Oil Corporation in the same locality." 43. Apart from conducting unfair investigation, the petitioner no.2 had also fabricated and forged documents during the course of the investigation in order to falsely implicate respondent no.2 and also wrongly confined his younger brother Mr.Vijay Aggarwal in CBI office where he was humiliated, harassed and tortured.
Delhi High Court
Ashok Kumar Aggarwal vs Central Bureau Of Investigation
Honourable Judges Siddharth Mridul
Date of Judgment: 13 January 2016
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 24
Relevancy Score: 63.62
The said representation made by the petitioner has been rejected by way of order dated 07.09.2015. 6. The facts as are relevant for the disposal of Criminal Revision Petition No.338/2014 relating to RC No.SI9 E0006 1999 dated 07.12.1999 are as follows: (1) The CBI registered a preliminary enquiry No.SI9 1999 E0002 on 17.09.1999 against the petitioner for disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.8,38,456/- during the period 1985 to 1999, and after the conclusion of the preliminary enquiry it was alleged that the petitioner had acquired disproportionate assets worth Rs.40,42,234/- against an income of Rs.73,39,672/-, which comes out to be approximately 55% of disproportionate income to his total income. (2) A Regular Case was registered on 07.12.1999 as RC No.S19 E0006 1999 in respect of the said disproportionate assets. (3) Further investigations alleged that the disproportionate assets were to the tune of Rs.12,04,46,938/- which was 7615.45% of his known source of income during the check period from 01.04.1990 to 04.03.1999. It was also alleged that the petitioner was involved in money laundering, and for channeling his ill- gotten wealth had established a number of companies wherein his family members were the founding Directors. (4) The CBI then sent a letter to the Ministry of Finance dated 24.05.2002 for accord of necessary sanction for prosecution of the petitioner. The same was accompanied by a Superintendent of Police's Report (hereinafter referred to as the 'SP's Report dated 24.05.2002') of 163 pages containing a detailed gist of the relevant statements and documents including the information on income tax returns, etc. The covering letter of the SP's Report dated 24.05.2002 stated as follows: "The SP's report sent herewith may please be treated as a secret document and no reference to it may be made in the sanction order when issued. In case the Ministry/Department, due to some reasons wants to depart from the material placed on record for issuing sanction, the matter may please be discussed with the undersigned so that the sanction for prosecution so accorded not found wanting legally. Since the relied upon documents are very large in quantity, they are not being enclosed. The Investigating Officer of this case Shri V.K. Pandey, will show the documents and also explain the evidence as and when required.
Delhi High Court
Arvind Kumar vs C B I
Honourable Judges Anu Malhotra
Date of Judgment: 31 August 2022
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 20
Relevancy Score: 63.02
Here, in the present case, no evidence at all was led on the side of the prosecution to show that the monies lying in fixed deposit in Shanti Devi's name were provided by the appellant and howsoever strong may be the suspicion of the court in this connection, it cannot take the place of proof. ... 33. It will, therefore, be seen that as against an aggregate surplus income of Rupees 44,383.59 which was available to the appellant during the period in question, the appellant possessed total assets worth Rupees 55,732.25. The assets possessed by the appellant were thus in excess of the surplus income available to him. but since the excess is comparatively small - it is less than ten per cent of the total income of Rs. 1,27,715.43 - we do not think it would be right to hold that the assets found in the possession of the appellant were disproportionate to his known sources of income so as to justify the raising of the presumption under Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:31.08.2022 17:23:57 digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA. Sub-section (3) of Section 5. We are of the view that, on the facts of the present case the High Court as well as the Special Judge were in error in raising the presumption contained in Sub-section (3) of Section 5 and convicting the appellant on the basis of such presumption.", to submit to the effect that where the assets were alleged to be disproportionate less than 10% of the total income and the excess is extremely small, it would not be justifiable to hold that the assets were disproportionate to the known sources of income. 31. The CBI vide its written submissions dated 02.12.2021 has submitted that it is a settled legal situation that in case the accused is convicted for an offence of possessing Disproportionate Assets, the said assets which relate to the crime, can be confiscated with reliance having been placed on behalf of the CBI on the verdict of the Hon€Ÿble Supreme Court in "Mirza Iqbal Hussain through Askari Begum Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh" AIR 1983 SC 60. 32. The CBI further submits that the petitioner/Arvind Kumar (A1) vide CRL.M.C.
Madras High Court
D.Janardhanan vs State Rep. By Its Deputy Superintendent ...
Honourable Judges M.V.Muralidaran
Date of Judgment: 3 July 2018
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 3
Relevancy Score: 62.96
When A1/Appellant sworn as MLA, he had owned a lamby scooter worth Rs.3,000/- and Ambassador car with a bank balance of Rs.256/- in his Savings Bank Account No.5495 at SACC, Cuddalore. At the same time, the balance available in the Savings Bank Account of the 2nd Accused/Appellant was at same bank at sum of Rs.25/- only. Both the Appellants/Accused owned 33 sovereign of the gold jewelry and as on 17.06.1991 their total assets were worth only a sum of Rs.1,78,281/-. 9.It is the specific allegation of the prosecution that after becoming a MLA and thereafter sworn a Minister in the State Legislative Assembly, A1 had acquired and possessed several movable and immovable assets, Term Deposits, Indhira Vikhas Patras, NSC and cash. Further, all these assets had been acquired by the 1st accused/appellant in his name and in the name of his wife. The value of the amassment of wealth by the 1st accused/appellant during the period between 07.06.1995 and 13.05.1995 at a sum of Rs.47,45,027/-. At the same time the total known income of the Appellant/1st accused is only at Rs.5,29,249/- from the known sources. But the expenditure for that period as about to Rs.13,97,651/-. Thus, he incurred an excess expenditure to the tune of Rs.8,68,402/-. Therefore, according to the prosecution that the aforesaid check period, A-1 has possessed assets disproportionate to his known source of income to the tune of Rs.56,13,249/-, and thereby he committed an offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 10.The case of the prosecution as against A-2 is that she has initially extended her assistance and co-operation in the process of acquisition of the disproportionate assets by the 1st accused and thereby she abetted the 1st accused/appellant and thus the 2nd accused/appellant committed an offence under Section 109 I.P.C. r/w 13(2), 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 11.Moreover, though prior to the indictment, the Investigation Officer PW-50 directed the 1st accused/appellant to offer his explanation in respect of the aforesaid findings, but the same was not heeded by the 1st accused, instead he informed that he would furnish his explanation before Court of the law.
Kerala High Court
K.V.Mathai vs State
Honourable Judges P.Ubaid
Date of Judgment: 17 November 2016
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 1
Relevancy Score: 62.56
The appellant herein retired from Government service as Inspector of Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax. On the allegation that, while working as Inspector of Sales Tax and Agricultural Income Tax, Kothamangalam during the period from 1.4.1980 to 20.5.1986, he had acquired assets disproportionate to his known-sources of income, the appellant faced prosecution before the learned Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thrissur in C.C.No. 22 of 1994. On the basis of some information or complaint regarding such amassement of wealth, the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ernakulam conducted a preliminary enquiry, and found some materials substantiating the allegations. Accordingly, the VACB registered a crime against the appellant as V.C. No. 4 of 1986, and proceeded for investigation. During investigation, the VACB found that the appellant had acquired income and assets worth 2,20,776/- in excess of what he could have legitimately earned and acquired as a public servant. The VACB assessed the total value of assets as on 1.4.1980 as 1,64,420.79/-, the value of assets as on 20.5.1986 as 5,41,574.87/-, the total income during the check period as 5,90,783.72/-, and the total expenses during the check period as 4,34,395.71/-. 2. The appellant appeared before the trial court, and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The prosecution examined 77 witnesses and marked Exts. P1 to P232 documents during trial. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the incriminating circumstances, and projected a defence that he had much income from various sources including agriculture and finance business, that his income from all sources was not assessed by the VACB during investigation, and the VACB happened to find excess acquisition of money and wealth only because the properties were not properly valued, and the income was not properly assessed. To prove the different sources of income, and also to prove valuation and assessment wrongly made by the officers of the VACB, the accused examined 10 witnesses, and marked Exts. D1 to D13 documents. 3. On an appreciation of the evidence adduced on both sides, the trial court found the prosecution allegations true to an extent, and accordingly found him guilty.
Delhi High Court
Arvind Kumar vs C B I
Honourable Judges Anu Malhotra
Date of Judgment: 31 August 2022
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 30
Relevancy Score: 62.38
The petitioner places reliance on the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohan Lal vs State of Punjab Crl. Appeal No. 1880 of 2011 wherein it is observed as under:- "....... a fair Investigation, which is but the very foundation of fair trial, necessarily postulates that the Informant and Investigator must not be the same person. ....... The prosecution is held to be vitiated because of the infraction of the constitutional guarantee of a fair investigation." 51. Inter alia, the petitioner submits that there is overwhelming evidence for the genuineness of the loan to the petitioner detailed in para V of the application at pages 15 to 18 which had not been rebutted by the respondent CBI, and that the loans have been provided Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:31.08.2022 17:23:57 digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA. through cheque, interests were paid and verified by CBI and taken as expenditure in the charge sheet, and the loans given to the petitioner are shown in the audited balance sheet of the creditor companies approved by the Income Tax Department available on the website of ROC/Delhi in Annexure P-11, and that TDS certificates on interests were issued to the creditors which were seized by the Respondent CBI during search, and that there are 94 numbers of confirmation letters of loan, and that the loans were confirmed by the Income Tax Officers even before search held on 19.12.2008, and that the creditors have filed a recovery suit against the petitioner. 52. Reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioner on the verdict of this Court in "Om Prakash Sharma vs CBI€Ÿ Crl. MC No. 1876/2011 submitting to the effect that assets not disproportionate to the known sources of income as known to the prosecution cannot be included as the same is not an offence. Reliance has also been placed on behalf of the petitioner on the verdict of this Court in 'Sunil Bhargava vs CBI' dated 13th March 2018 submitting to the effect that the investigating agency is required to show that the assets/accounts have direct link with the commission of offence. The petitioner thus submits that the seizure of bank accounts and immovable properties of the petitioner is wholly illegal.
Madras High Court
D.Janardhanan vs State Rep. By Its Deputy Superintendent ...
Honourable Judges M.V.Muralidaran
Date of Judgment: 3 July 2018
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 21
Relevancy Score: 62.38
36.Though the aforesaid submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) is relevant for consideration, no explanation is offered about the lacuna found in the investigation. Since, the Investigation Officer himself is the informant in the instant case, he has failed himself in considering the other vital aspects including the source of the income from the appellant/1st accused, and he is father-in-law DW-3. 37.Moreover, the learned Trial Judge has travelled beyond the charges framed against the appellant/1st accused. Though, no charge is framed out of the check period with regard to the disproportionate asset, the learned Trial Judge has fallen into error that he can give finding without charge. If at all, the learned Trial Judge wanted to take into account the disproportionate asset after the check period, he is very well entitled to frame charges based on materials furnished by the Investigation Officer along with the charge sheet. In the instant case, without framing additional charges or separate charges to the effect to deal the alleged disproportionate income beyond the check period is not in accordance with law. The reason behind is that if all the learned trial judge has found that the appellant/1st accused had sources of income disproportionate to his assets and along with the final report the Investigation Officer has also furnished materials to that effect he can very well frame additional or separate charge. Then the contention of the charge is to be explained to the accused to facilitate him to defend the charge. Without complying with these legal requirements the learned trial judge cannot be influenced himself to the materials furnished along with the final report. Here in the instant case the learned trial judge has got influenced with the materials furnished along with final report and he has gone apart from the charges framed against the appellant / 1st accused as the same is impermissible in law.
Delhi High Court
Union Of India vs Mridula Kapur
Honourable Judges Vibhu Bakhru
Date of Judgment: 11 December 2019
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 4
Relevancy Score: 62.12
This is obvious, since on a bare perusal of the allegations against the respondent's husband and on a plain examination of the findings on the basis of which respondent's husband was being convicted of the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act. The allegation against the respondent's husband was that he had amassed assets disproportionate to his sources of income. It was found that as on 10.10.2007 (end of the check period), the respondent's husband (Major Gen. Anand Kumar Kapoor) was in possession of assets to the extent of ‚¹5,51,92,598/-. These included both movable and immovable assets, either in his own name or in the name of the respondent. Three immovable properties of the respondent which are sought to be attached by the appellant were part of the immovable assets taken into account while calculating the assets held by the respondent's husband as on 10.10.2007. The Trial Court had found that a total income of ‚¹4,10,35,864/- had been earned during the check period and an expenditure of ‚¹1,26,52,600/- was incurred during the said period. After accounting for the same, as well as the assets available at the beginning of the check period, the Trial Court concluded that the assets to the extent of ‚¹2,22,04,290/- were disproportionate to the known sources of the income of respondent's husband. Thus, clearly the remaining assets were acquired from legitimate and known sources of income and therefore, cannot be considered as proceeds of crime. 15. Assets, to the extent of ‚¹2,22,04,290/-, have been directed to be confiscated and thus, there is no scope for the present proceedings on the basis that any of the remaining assets constitute proceeds of crime. It is relevant to note that no particular assets held by respondent or her husband were identified as an asset derived from any criminal activity. The nature of the charge did not warrant any such inquiry and the extent of disproportionate assets had been determined on the basis of the value of assets at the end of the check period less the value that could be accounted from the known sources of income. In view of the above, the contention that three immovable assets held by the respondent are proceeds of crime, is fundamentally flawed.
Kerala High Court
K.V.Mathai vs State
Honourable Judges P.Ubaid
Date of Judgment: 17 November 2016
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 21
Relevancy Score: 62.06
I find that a huge amount inclusive of income from agricultural sources was suppressed by the prosecution, and this will have to be added to the total income during the check period. The Investigating Officers do not have any idea regarding the income from agricultural sources of the accused and his wife. Admittedly, the wife of the accused is a teacher, and she has also some properties of her own. I find that the expenses were also not assessed properly by the VACB. Some amount wrongly shown in the statement D by way of expenses will have to be deducted. On a close scrutiny and examination of the entire evidence, and also in view of the admissions made by the two Investigating Officers, that income was not properly assessed from various sources, including agricultural operations, or that valuation of different assets including buildings was not properly done, I find that the prosecution in this case has failed to prove convincingly or beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused had amassed wealth disproportionate to his legitimate sources of income. Even otherwise, I have found that the appellant is entitled for acquittal on legal aspects. As already observed, the appellant is a person having income from different sources, including his wife's salary and agricultural income. The appellant and his wife belong to well to-do families having substantial assets and income from various sources. When such a person is being prosecuted, the task must be heavy on the prosecution to assess things properly. This is not the case of a public servant having no other source of income than salary. Had this been a case of such a public servant, things would have been very easy, and the amassment of wealth disproportionate to the income from salary could very well have been easily assessed. 32. The evidence given by PWs 75 and 76 would convince the court that to bring a prosecution against the accused, they made some sort of assessment without any factual basis, and without applying the mind. Without a proper valuation of assets, and a proper assessment of income and expenditure, the prosecution cannot prove that the public servant had amassed wealth disproportionate to his legitimate sources of income, and the court cannot accept such a prosecution brought simply on the basis of some guess work.
Jharkhand High Court
Narendra Mohan Singh And Anr vs Directorate Of Enforcement And Anr
Honourable Judges R.R.Prasad
Date of Judgment: 22 March 2014
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 9
Relevancy Score: 61.98
10. Further, in this regard, I may refere to a decision rendered in a case of "Sajjan Singh-versus-State of Punjab" (supra), wherein the appellant was put to trial for the charges under Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, when the assets acquired by the appellant was found to be disproportionate to his know sources of income, the stand, which had been taken is that the property, which was taken to be disproportionate to his know source of income, had been acquired before Section 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, was incorporated in Section 5 and, thereby, he is not liable to be prosecuted under Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The contention was repelled by Their Lordships for the reason assigned in para-15, which reads as follows:- "15. It may also be mentioned that if pecuniary resources or property acquired before the date of commencement of the Act were to be left out of account in applying sub-section (3) of S.5 it would be proper and reasonable to limit the receipt of income against which the proportion is to be considered also to the period after the Act. On the face of it this would lead to a curious and anomalous position by no means satisfactory or helpful to the accused himself. For the income received during the years previous to the commencement of the Act may have helped in the acquisition of property after the commencement of the Act. From whatever point we look at the matter it seems to us clear that the pecuniary resources and property in possession of the accused persons or any other person on his behalf have to be taken into consideration for the purpose of sub-sec. (3) of S.5, whether these were acquired before or after the Act came into force." 11. Moreover, the facts of the case also never justifies the submission, which had been advanced on behalf of the petitioners . It be stated that it is a case of the CBI that Kamles Kumar Singh had acquired assets worth Rs. 5,46,07,597/- in between March, 2005 to July, 2009, whereas Section 13, as has been stated above, was incorporated in the scheduled offence w.e.f. 01/06/2009. Therefore, the property derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to scheduled offence can easily be taken to be the proceeds of crime.
Jharkhand High Court
Mukteshwar Prasad Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand Through C.B.I. ...
Date of Judgment: 1 December 2006
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 7
Relevancy Score: 61.92
11. From the facts of the case it is manifest that the petitioner (Mukteshwar Prasad Singh) an Inspector of Income Tax working in the office of Income Tax, Dhanbad was prosecuted for the alleged offence under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(i)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(i)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(i)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the allegation of amassing disproportionate assets beyond known source of income which counted Rs. 18,20,000/- on the F.I.R. contained signed by the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., A.H.D., Ranchi drawn on 8.3.04. After institution of the case the investigation was entrusted to Shri A.K. Jha, Inspector, C.B.I. but after investigation the petitioner (Mukteshwar Prasad Singh) was found to have acquired or found to be in possession of assets worth Rs. 36,35,805/- beyond his income to the tune of Rs. 20,65,775.70/- which break off expenditure amounting to Rs. 11,81,616.73/- and likely saving amounting to Rs. 8,84,158.97/- during the checking period and in this manner after investigation of the case it was found that the petitioner was in possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 27,51,646.03/- for which he has no explanation and in this manner the charge-sheet was submitted for the offence punishable under Section 5(i)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 corresponding to Section 13(2) read with Section 13(i)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The necessary sanction was obtained from the Commissioner of Income Tax No. 1, Patna under Section 19(i)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on 20.7.2005 upon Submission of charge-sheet, the special judge, C.B.I.-cum- 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad took the cognizance of the offence under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(i)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 corresponding to Section 13(2) read with Section 13(i)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on 7.12.2005 by the order impugned.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Ghulam Ali Dar vs State Of J&K; & Others
Honourable Judges M. K. Hanjura
Date of Judgment: 5 October 2018
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 3
Relevancy Score: 61.9
The learned Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment convicting the appellant for offences punishable under Section 5(1) (e) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 14 of J&K Public Men and Public Servants Declaration of Assets and other Provisions Act, 1983, sentencing him to the imprisonment of two years and fine of Rs.6.00 lacs. The appellant has been held guilty for possessing the property beyond known sources of income. The learned Trial Court, as maintained by the appellant, has committed serious legal error in recording the conviction. The appellant was charged under Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The said provision relates to alleged disproportionate assets possessed beyond the known sources of the income by the accused. The well settled legal position is that if an accused satisfactorily explains the possession of the assets of the property, which the prosecution alleges to be disproportionate to the known sources of income, the offence falls through. 4. It is also stated by the appellant in the present appeal that the prosecution has taken the check period from January 1988 to December 1997. The properties stated to be owned and possessed by the accused and involved in the case are as follows: (i) House at Rawalpora (ii) Landed property at Nowgam, Kharpora and at Paloura Jammu (iii) Moveable property in the shape of one Maruti Car and one Fiat Car (iv) Cash seized during house search of the accused (v) Pay cheques (vi) Electronic gadgets, textiles and furniture items and other household items. (vii) Wrist watches. 5. The appellant also maintains that he had tendered more than satisfactory explanation with regard to each and every item alleged against him. In the Annual Property Statements submitted by him from time to time before the competent authority, all the items constituting the subject matter of the investigation were duly reflected. At no stage the Government or any other competent authority doubted the genuineness or correctness of the statements made by the appellant in the Annual Property Statements. In fact, the case has been initiated by the Vigilance Organisation of its own, without any justifiable cause or information regarding the assets owned and possessed by the appellant, which could be said to be beyond the known sources of income.
Delhi High Court
Union Of India vs Mridula Kapur
Honourable Judges Vibhu Bakhru
Date of Judgment: 11 December 2019
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 1
Relevancy Score: 61.7
% 11.12.2019 VIBHU BAKHRU, J 1. This is an appeal preferred by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereafter 'PMLA') impugning an order dated 13.04.2018 passed by the Appellate Tribunal (hereafter 'The Tribunal'). By the impugned order, the Tribunal had allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent and had quashed the Provisional Attachment order dated 04.11.2016, as well as the order dated 17.03.2017, confirming the order dated 04.11.2016. 2. By the said order dated 04.11.2016, certain immoveable properties of the respondent (appellant before the Tribunal) had been provisionally attached. The said order was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority by an order dated 17.03.2017. 3. The order of Provisional Attachment is premised on a case instituted against the respondent and her husband (Major General Anand Kumar Kapur) under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A chargesheet (chargesheet no. 3 dated 26.10.2009) has been filed under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C by ACU-II Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), alleging that the petitioner's husband had amassed assets, disproportionate to his known sources of income and the petitioner (respondent herein) had abetted the offence. 4. The facts as stated in the chargesheet disclose that Major General Anand Kumar (husband of the respondent) was commissioned in the Indian Army on 14.11.1971. On 10.10.2007, various searches were conducted and the check period for Major General Anand Kumar was taken from 14.11.1971 to 10.10.2007. As per the chargesheet, prior to the check period, General Anand Kumar was in possession of assets, both movable and immovable, to the extent of ‚¹41,700/- and at the end of the check period - that is, as on 10.10.2007 - he was in possession of assets, both movable and immovable, in his own name or in the name of his wife (the respondent), to the tune of ‚¹5,51,92,598/-. It was alleged that Major General Anand Kumar had acquired assets worth ‚¹3,37,02,592/-, which was disproportionate to his known sources of income. The respondent had abetted her husband in the commission of the crime regarding acquisition of disproportionate assets.
Madras High Court
D.Janardhanan vs State Rep. By Its Deputy Superintendent ...
Honourable Judges M.V.Muralidaran
Date of Judgment: 3 July 2018
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 19
Relevancy Score: 61.63
32.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 (1), wherein it is held that based on two conditions the investigation is to be commenced as for as offences fall under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The first one is that the Public Officer should have reasons to suspect the commission of cognizable offence and the 2nd one is that he has to subjectively satisfy himself as to the existence of sufficient ground for entering prosecution. Whereas the facts of the case on hand is that strong doubt has arisen as to whether PW-50 on his own has registered the F.I.R. or on the instructions of his higher officials attached with the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai. 33.At the same time, this Court is very conscious to deal the bitter issue that is the evil of corruption in public life, which can be otherwise painfully known as devil of corruption in public life. No doubt, it is the duty of the Court to weed out the corruption from the public life. But the same cannot be on moral aspects alone, as for as criminal jurisprudence is concerned that the allegation of the source of the funds for the assets standing in the names of the accused, such allegations has to be established by the prosecution in the course of the trial and the accused have on opportunity to dispense the prosecution allegation as the ratio laid down in the judgment reported in 2015 (2) TNLR 32 (Mad). 34.Further, the judgment relied on by the learned Counsel for the appellants reported in CDJ 2006 MNC 2586 in Criminal Nos. 610/1997, and 79/2000, 83/2000,103/2000, wherein this Court has held that as for as the allegations made against the public servant that he had assets disproportionate, to the known source of the income, the duty of the investigation officer is as follows: The investigating officer should asses the value of the assets of the public servant immediately prior to the check period with relevance to the tax returns of the concerned person and also loans and other incomes available to the person and also about the liability of the person prior to the check period. The actual income during the check period and the expenditure actually incurred by the public servant should be calculated without any inflation and on a reasonable basis.
Telangana High Court
Telangana High CourtDattu Panth vs The State Of A.P., Anti Corruption ...
Honourable Judges G. Radha Rani
Date of Judgment: 23 February 2023
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 1
Relevancy Score: 61.4
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner-accused for setting aside the order dated 19.08.2013 passed in Crl.M.P.No.280 of 2013 in C.C. No.14 of 2010 by the I Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases cum V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad Range. 2. The Inspector of Police, ACB, Hyderabad Range, filed charge sheet against the petitioner - accused officer for disproportionate assets under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'PC Act') alleging that the accused officer, while working as Deputy Executive Engineer in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, L.B. Nagar Circle, Ranga Reddy District and while functioning as public servant in various capacities in various Municipalities during the check period, indulged in corruption and illegal practices and secured huge assets worth Rs.42,61,007/- as on the terminal date of check period in his name and in the name of his Dr.GRR,J family members and dependents. For the entire check period, the income of the accused officer from all the known sources was arrived at Rs.29,71,360/- and the total expenditure incurred was calculated at Rs.30,73,279/- and he was found with an excess expenditure of Rs.1,01,919/- (expenditure of Rs.30,73,279/- minus income of Rs.29,71,360/-). The total value of the disproportionate assets found in possession of the accused officer in his name and in the names of his wife and children as on 20.11.2007 would amount to Rs.43,62,926/- (Assets of Rs.42,61,007/- plus excess expenditure of Rs.1,01,919/-). 3. The case was taken cognizance by the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad, numbered as C.C.No.14 of 2010 and during the course of trial, two witnesses were examined by the prosecution out of 38 witnesses cited. 4. While the matter stood thus, a representation was given by the accused officer to the Government submitting that the ACB had exaggerated the value of the assets and included several items of assets which were not acquired or owned by him as his assets and boosted the items of expenditure and tagged several items of Dr.GRR,J expenditure which were not related to him and made double entries of several other items of expenditure and short accounted source of income and ignored several other sources of income.
Kerala High Court
K.V.Mathai vs State
Honourable Judges P.Ubaid
Date of Judgment: 17 November 2016
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 8
Relevancy Score: 61.26
What is available before the Court is only the FIR. This is not a case of 'suo motu FIR' where the Deputy Superintendent of Police registered the FIR on the basis of his knowledge or information or on the basis of the materials collected by him. In the above circumstances where the FIR in this case does not have solid factual basis or foundation, the whole prosecution must necessarily collapse as an inevitable consequence. 14. Now, let me come to the facts of the prosecution case, and let me decide whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the appellant herein had amassed wealth or money or assets disproportionate to his known legitimate sources of income during the check period, taken by the VACB. A prosecution under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 [Now Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988] is quite different from a prosecution under the other Sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In a trap case, or in a case alleging dishonest misappropriation of public money by a public servant, the amount involved will always be definite and certain. But in a prosecution on the allegation of amassement of wealth or assets disproportionate to the known-sources of income, the duty is heavy on the prosecution to prove all the required details regarding the assets and the income of the accused. The amount of income, or the value of assets, in such a prosecution, may not be always definite or certain. It must be the concern of the prosecution, and a duty also, to ensure that the necessary figures regarding the assets and income of the accused are presented before the court to the satisfaction of the court, or on a proper assessment made reasonably, rationally and realistically. In such a prosecution alleging amassement of wealth disproportionate to the known-sources of income, the prosecuting agency is bound to tell the court what exactly are the known sources of income, what exactly was his income from each such source, and to what extent wealth was amassed by the accused, disproportionate to such known-sources of income. In such a prosecution, the assets of the accused must be properly valued, and the income must be properly assessed, though mathematical precision may not be possible.
Madras High Court
B.Ranganathan vs State
Honourable Judges V.Kanagaraj
Date of Judgment: 4 March 2003
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 9
Relevancy Score: 61.21
The learned senior counsel would end up his argument praying to allow the petition setting aside the order of the first respondent. 9. In reply, the learned Government Advocate on the criminal side appearing on behalf of the first respondent would submit that the case is under the Prevention of Corruption Act particularly for having assessed and being in possession of wealth disproportionate to the known sources of income of the petitioner and therefore Sections 17 and 18 of the Prevention of Corruption Act are conferring powers to investigate which include inspection of the bank accounts etc. and there is nothing to prevent the Investigating Officer from freezing the accounts; that the Inspector has been empowered by the Superintendent of Police and therefore he is perfectly within his powers and jurisdiction to freeze the bank account which he has done promptly. The learned Government Advocate, relying on the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court reported in 2000-2-L.W. (Crl.)489 (extracted supra while tracing the counter) would end up his argument praying to dismiss the above criminal original petition. 10. Since the respondents 2 and 3 are only formal parties, no notice has been ordered to them. 11. In consideration of the facts pleaded, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, it could be gathered that the petitioner is a Member of the Legislative Assembly and is a "public servant" within the meaning of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; that the first respondent has registered a case against the petitioner for the alleged offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w.13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on allegation that he is in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income, which he cannot satisfactorily account for.
Bombay High Court
Vivek Batra vs The Union Of India
Honourable Judges S.C.Dharmadhikari, G.S.Patel
Date of Judgment: 29 October 2013
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 1
Relevancy Score: 61.08
ig Reserved on : 11th October, 2013 Pronounced on : 29th October, 2013. Judgment (Per S.C.Dharmadhikari, J.): 1 In the light of the earlier orders passed by this Court at the stage of issuance of notice, this Writ Petition is disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 2 Hence, RULE. The Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3 By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Petitioner is challenging the grant of sanction vide order dated 09.10.2012. This order is passed by the Respondent No.1. 4 The Petitioner before us is a citizen of India. He is an Indian Revenue Service Officer of 1992 batch (for short IRS officer). Presently, he is the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai. *3* wp.3654.12.cr.db.sxw 5 It is stated that a case of Disproportionate Assets bearing RC No.BA1/2005/A0017 was registered by the Respondent No.4 on 4 th April, 2005 against the Petitioner who is the original accused, under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is alleged in the complaint dated 04.04.2005 that the present Petitioner who is the original Accused while functioning as a public servant indulged in corrupt practices and thereby accumulated assets exceeding Rs.01,27,38,353/- disproportionate to his known sources of income and in his name and in the name of his wife and minor son during the period from 04.01.1993 to 31.03.2004. According to the Petitioner, as a result of long investigation over almost 6 years, the prosecution could not find any alleged disproportionate assets in the hands of the Petitioner or his family members viz. his wife Mrs.Priyanka Batra and minor son Master Arjun Batra, but sought prosecution of the Petitioner by somehow linking two companies, namely, M/s ARJ Impex Private Limited and M/s Malik Hospitality Services Private Limited to the Petitioner, thereby computing the disproportionate assets at Rs.56.30 lacs approximately in these two companies. The prosecution applied for sanction against the Petitioner before the Sanctioning Authority in October/ November, 2010. Annexure A to the petition is a copy of the First Information Report.
Madras High Court
N.R.Kothandan vs The Assistant Director Of
Honourable Judges S.Manikumar
Date of Judgment: 13 July 2012
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 8
Relevancy Score: 60.58
The three charges levelled against the employee, were viz., possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income and two other related to misconduct in not filing the returns at all for some years as required under Rule 13(1)(c) of the Hindustan Petroleum Management Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1976 and the third charge relating to failure of the respondent employee to file property returns for the years 1991-92, 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98. On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that charges 2 and 3 stated supra are different from charge no.1 which relate to possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income and the charge no.1 relates to corruption and therefore, it would not be proper to continue the appellant in employment as it would not be in public interest and in any event, the respondent would be able to place facts relevant to all the charges in the departmental proceedings. In the abovesaid case, placing reliance on "M.Paul Anthony' case, the employee submitted that if disciplinary proceedings were allowed to continue, he would be compelled to disclose his defence and in any event as charge no.1 relates to corruption, the departmental authority have no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. After considering the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, viz., reported in "Depot Manager, APSRTC versus Moh.Yousuf Miya" (1997 (2) SCC 699; "State of Rajasthan versus B.K.Meena" (1996 (6) SCC 417 and in "Capt.M.Paul Anthony versus Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.," (1997(2) SCC 699, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in categorical terms, in para 13 held as follows: "13. It is to be noted that in cases involving Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, the onus is on the accused to prove that the assets found were not disproportionate to the known sources of income. The expression known sources of income is related to the sources known to the authorities and not the accused. The Explanation to Section 13(1) of the PC Act provides that for the purposes of the section, known sources of income means income derived from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant. How the assets were acquired and from what source of income is within the special knowledge of the accused.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Ghulam Ali Dar vs State Of J&K; & Others
Honourable Judges M. K. Hanjura
Date of Judgment: 5 October 2018
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 8
Relevancy Score: 60.55
It is averred that the appellant had demonstrated with reference to his income from all the known sources, i.e. his salary, agriculture land, sale of agricultural produce, income from saffron and also the amount received from the father by the appellant. The appellant, in his Annual Property Statement, had shown all the sources of the income, which far exceeded his expenditure. The appellant submits that at no stage during the check period or thereafter he possessed any asset, moveable or immovable, any cash or any kind to his source of the income, duly identified by him. The physical existence of various assets belonging to the appellant were supported by the legal evidence and proper permissions. The assets allegedly belonging to the appellant were clearly shown that they do not belong to him but to other persons, who had a separate income for creating those assets. The appellant had shown that he is one of the members of the joint family and the assets created were from the income of the joint family and wherever the appellant had created any asset in his own name or in the name of his family members, it was separately indicated in the property statement and was not a part of the joint family. The appellant had clearly proved that his expenditure throughout the check period whether in kitchen or in the education of his children or on any other item was borne by the other members of the joint family and the appellant was in a position to substantially save his income from various sources indicated by him. The court below, it is maintained, has clearly erred in law in applying the same standard and degree of proof required by the prosecution in the matter of the conviction. The appellant more than probabilized his defence and had clearly tendered convicting explanation about the assets, which clearly belonged to him and were shown in the annual Property Statements. No bases exist for the learned Trial Court not to believe the explanation tendered by the appellant in respect of the matters which have formed the basis of recording conviction. The appellant states that whatever assets were put to him during the course of the examination under Section 342 Cr.P.C., the appellant had clearly tendered the explanation.
Kerala High Court
N.Chandrasekharan Nair vs State
Honourable Judges P.Ubaid
Date of Judgment: 23 December 2015
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 1
Relevancy Score: 60.47
The appellant herein was Junior Engineer of the Public Health Investigation and Bridge Division, Vaikom, Assistant Executive Engineer of the Public Heath Sub Division, Punalur and Cherthala, and Assistant Executive Engineer at the Water Supply Sub Division, Vaikom during the period from 1.1.1976 to 15.5.1985. On the allegation that during this period, he amassed wealth disproportionate to his known-sources of income, the appellant faced prosecution before the learned Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance) Thrissur in C.C 39 of 1991 under Section 5 (2) read with 5 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 ( for short "the P.C Act"). The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kottayam registered crime against the accused on the basis of a report of enquiry conducted by the vigilance, and such an enquiry was conducted on the basis of a complaint dated 30.4.1985. The F.I.R did not show the exact period during which the accused is alleged to have amassed disproportionate wealth, but later the vigilance conveniently chose the period from 1.1.1976 to 15.5.1985. In view of the allegations, the VACB conducted an effective investigation, and as part of this investigation, so many documents were seized by way of house search and otherwise, by the vigilance. On the finding that during the said check-period, the accused amassed disproportionate wealth worth 4,12,762/-, the VACB submitted final report before the court below. The case of the vigilance is that as against the total savings of 2,49,201/- during the check period, the accused amassed wealth worth 6,61,963/-. 2. The accused appeared before the trial court and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him under Section 5 (2) read with 5 (1) (e) of the P.C Act, 1947. The prosecution examined 97 witnesses and marked Exts.P1 to P432 documents. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused denied the incriminating circumstances and submitted that the assets were not properly valued by the vigilance, the income was also not properly assessed, and that he had not amassed anything disproportionate to his different sources of income from salary, investments, agriculture and rent. To explain away the different circumstances and documents produced by the vigilance to substantiate the allegation, the accused examined eight witnesses and also proved Exts.D1 to D9 documents.
Delhi High Court
Virbhadra Singh & Anr. vs Central Bureau Of Investigation & Ors.
Honourable Judges Vipin Sanghi
Date of Judgment: 31 March 2017
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 41
Relevancy Score: 60.4
Reliance is placed on V.K. Puri (supra), wherein the Supreme Court held that the Special Judge at Delhi had jurisdiction to deal with the case, because one of the known sources of income of the petitioner therein was the rent received from a property located in Delhi. By placing reliance upon the ingredients of Section 177-178 of the Cr.P.C., Mr. Patwalia submits that CBI has the jurisdiction to investigate the offences in question. 84. Mr. Patwalia repels the contention of the petitioners that the Special Judge in Delhi does not have jurisdiction, as the assets are claimed to be located outside the jurisdiction of the learned Special Judge, Delhi. He submits that a known source of income - relevant to the check period, is in Delhi; large number of bank accounts and FDRS are located in Delhi; there is a farm house property in Delhi in the name of the company Maple Destinations Dream Build Pvt. Ltd.- a company owned by the petitioners' daughter and son. The submission of the petitioner no. 1 that his son has purchased the said farmhouse from his own source of income is fallacious, as the total income reflected by the son in the income tax return for the year 2012-13 is Rs. 2,97,149/- which is nowhere close to the amount required to purchase a farm house. He submits that the investigation has revealed that the farm house is included in the total assets of the petitioner no. 1, and that he had, amongst others, given around Rs. 90 lakhs for purchase of the same. 85. Reliance is placed on Section 13 of the PC Act to submit that the cause of action arose in Delhi. The said section, insofar as it is relevant, is reproduced hereinbelow: "13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant: (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,- (a)---------------------------------------------------------; or (b)---------------------------------------------------------; or (c)---------------------------------------------------------; or (d)---------------------------------------------------------; or (e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income.
Kerala High Court
N.Chandrasekharan Nair vs State
Honourable Judges P.Ubaid
Date of Judgment: 23 December 2015
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 2
Relevancy Score: 60.28
3. On an appreciation of the evidence, the lower court found the accused guilty of having amassed wealth disproportionate to his known-sources of income. The finding of the trial court is that the accused acquired wealth worth 2,42,334/- in excess of what he could have acquired with his savings during the check period. On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of 3 lakhs under Section 5 (2) read with 5 (1) (e) of the P.C Act by judgment dated 25.2.2000. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, the accused has come up in appeal. 4. When this appeal came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is entitled for acquittal in this case on factual as well as legal grounds. As regards the factual aspects, the learned counsel submitted that the assets in the possession of the accused were not considered or assessed by the vigilance as on the date of commencement of the check period, that the income from different sources was not properly assessed, that income from so many sources was omitted by the vigilance, and that the expenses during the check period were also not properly assessed by the vigilance. The learned counsel submitted that, had the vigilance done things properly according to law, nobody could find that the accused had amassed anything disproportionate to his known-sources of income. As regards the legal aspects, the learned counsel submitted that the very F.I.R in this case is baseless, or that the F.I.R is not supported by the necessary materials, and that the whole prosecution is barred for the reason that there is no proper and legal sanction in this case, and even the sanction produced by the prosecution stands not properly proved according to law. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the vigilance submitted final report in court after proper assessment and valuation, and that the prosecution sanction is proved by the competent person. 5. Before going to the factual aspects as regards the assets, value of assets, income, expenses etc during the check period alleged by the prosecution, let me go to the legal aspects regarding the F.I.R and the prosecution sanction. 6. Ext.P393 is the prosecution sanction granted by the Secretary to the Government, Vigilance Department.
Karnataka High Court
Sri D K Shivakumar vs Central Bureau Of Investigation
Honourable Judges K.Natarajan
Date of Judgment: 19 October 2023
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 21
Relevancy Score: 60.26
The learned Senior Counsel would further contend that as per the contentions of the CBI in the FIR, the declaration of assets by the petitioner has including the assets of the family members at the time of election of the year 2013 was Rs.33,92,62,793/-. They added all the Assets and Liabilities of the family members, which cannot be included in the definition of the public servant. He further contended that even there is no specification or individual name of the wife and children and their Assets and Liabilities mentioned in the FIR. It is not the case of the prosecution that the properties held by the wife and children are the benami properties of the petitioner. Therefore, it is contended that once there is no allegation of benami assets possessed by some other person, it cannot be included in the assets of the petitioner. He further contended that the assets of the family members including the income tallying with petitioner's account for registration of FIR, is not correct. He further contended that the ingredients of 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act is not attracted for registering the FIR against the petitioner. On the aforesaid ground, the learned Senior Counsel prayed for quashing the FIR. 41. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent has seriously objected the petition contending that the FIR registered by the police is based upon a source report by preliminary enquiry, and they have stated that the public servant, i.e. the petitioner, is holding the assets including the assets of the family members, which is more than the income and assets declared in the year 2013 Assembly Election. On comparing the Assets and Liabilities declared by the petitioner in 2018 election during the check period from 01.04.2013 to 30.04.2018, it amounts to more than Rs.74 Crores excess than the known source of income. It is also contended that the FIR cannot contain the details of Assets and Liabilities of each family members and other persons. The FIR is not an encyclopedia containing all the minute details and it has to be considered only after investigating the matter while filing the final report. 42. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that as per Section 13 of the P.C. Act, it is referring to the assets of public servant and not included any family member, as an unit.
Madras High Court
V.K. Palanivelu vs The Deputy Director
Honourable Judges D. Murugesan
Date of Judgment: 20 August 2009
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 3
Relevancy Score: 60.19
2. It also revealed that the documents that you have sent along with the complaint are the documents of properties that were purchased prior to 1993, lieu before he became Union Minister or Member of Parliament, therefore, CBI cannot proceed against him. 3. We have no power to make such recommendation. 4. You have sought us only to take action. If you want to appeal against this communication, you may appeal to Mr. P. Kandasami, Deputy Director, CBI Anti Corruption Wing, Shasthri Bhavan, III Floor, Chennai-6 within 30 days in an appropriate manner. Thanking you, Sd/- (C. Murugan) Superintendent of Police & Public Information Officer, Anti Corruption Wing, Chennai." 8. The petitioner thereafter wrote to the first respondent on 6.3.2009 pointing out that the second respondent had accumulated huge wealth disproportionate to his known source of income. At the end of that letter, he made the following request :- "Therefore, it is requested to take my complaint on file and you may please institute an enquiry into the amassing of huge wealth and assets disproportionate to the known source of income of Mr. K.V. Thangabalu and his family members as the assets are admittedly accumulated when he was / is a public servant." Petitioner thereafter filed the present writ petition on 15.4.2009 seeking a writ of mandamus against the first respondent to register the petitioner's complaint dated 6.3.2009 on file and to enquire into the charges levelled against the second respondent and his family members and further proceed in accordance with law and thus render justice. 9. The second respondent filed his counter affidavit and pointed out that the petitioner is set up by unsuccessful political contenders. According to him, the first complaint was made just before the Parliamentary Elections of 2004 with an attempt to defame him. Thereafter, nothing was done for five years and again, just before the Elections of 2009, the second representation is made to the C.B.I. He pointed out that he comes from an agricultural family having regular agricultural income and with the said income, he entered into granite business in patta lands between 1975 and 1980. He was also doing private contract works and earning considerable income from all these sources. He is an income tax assessee and all the investments made by him and the properties purchased by him are duly accounted for.
Delhi High Court
Sh. Vishwa Vibhuti vs Central Bureau Of Investigation
Honourable Judges Anil Kumar
Date of Judgment: 6 July 2012
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 34
Relevancy Score: 60.13
38. By order dated 12th April, 2006 the Special Judge had dismissed the application which had been filed by the petitioner pursuant to order dated 6th October, 2005 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.730/2005 titled as Vishwa Vibhuti v. CBI holding that the expression "known source of income" must have reference to source known to the prosecution and the prosecution cannot, in every nature of offence, be expected to know firms of the accused person. It was further held that the prosecution could only lead evidence to show that the accused was known to earn his living by service under Government during the material period. Relying on Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act it was held that it casts burden on the accused not only to offer a plausible explanation as to how he came to have his large wealth, but also to satisfy the Court that his explanation was worthy of acceptance. The reliance was placed on P.Nallamal v. State (Supra); State of Maharashtra v. Ishwar Piraji Kapatri, (1996) 1 SCC 542 and State through CBI v. S.Bangarappa, 2000 (4) Crimes 276 (SC). 39. This cannot be disputed that to substantiate a charge, the prosecution must prove the following ingredients namely:- 1) the prosecution must establish that the accused is a public servant; 2) the nature and extent of the pecuniary resources or property which were found in his possession; 3) it must be proved as to what were his known sources of income, i.e. known to the prosecution, and 4) it must prove, quite objectively, that such resources or property found in possession of the accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income. In Hem Chand (Supra) the issue before the Apex Court was whether any documents which the accused may rely in support of his defense could be looked into at the stage of framing of charge or not. It was held that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court will not weigh the evidence as the stage for appreciating the evidence for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion is where the prosecution was able to bring home the charge against the accused or not, would arise only if all the evidence is brought on record at the trial. Though on the basis of admitted documents the accused may be in a position to show that the charge could not have been framed against him but the accused could not rely upon some documents upon which the prosecution does not rely.
Madras High Court
D.Janardhanan vs State Rep. By Its Deputy Superintendent ...
Honourable Judges M.V.Muralidaran
Date of Judgment: 3 July 2018
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 18
Relevancy Score: 60.05
So, at this juncture, the law laid down the Honble Supreme Court in AIR 1981 SC 1186 (1) is useful to refer, wherein it is settled that the Accused need not prove his innocence by all reasonable doubts preponderance of probability as to possessions set out by accused is sufficient. Here the sources of income generated by the father-in-law were not properly considered as per the evidence Pw-50. To strengthen his arguments in this point, the learned counsel for the appellant has heavily relied on the judgment of this Court reported in 2014 (2) Law weekly Criminal 188, wherein it is held that whether the possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income burden of proof evidential burden not a persuasive burden, nothing unusual in daughter in law borrowing from her father in law accused have shown saving to purchase properties, course of investigation suggestive of predetermination of guilt prosecution -failed to prove appellant were holding assert disproportionate to their known sources of income conviction set-aside. 29.In my considered opinion, the Investigation Officer has not properly calculated the expenditures spent by the appellants, contrary, on his own he has hiked the amount mentioned towards the purchase of properties. 30.Though PW-50 is only investigation officer he ought to have examined the vendors of the properties in respect of the actual amount transacted. Moreover, though it is deposed by the Investigating Officer that his direction to the appellant/1st accused to offer his explanation was not complied with, but in this regard, no documentary proof is marked as exhibit. The Annexure-II of the charge sheet especially in serial No.12, the calculation was not properly calculated and also several items the amount spent are hiked without any basis. 31.As for as the income sources of DW-3, the Investigation Officer has not completely investigated and he admitted that the income source of DW-3 was not investigated and same was not taken into account. Moreover, the other sources of income of the DW-3 were also not taken into account; this would show the oneness of the investigation officer. When the prosecution case is mainly resting on the evidence of PW-50, his investigation is to be expected to show all fairness in filing the final report. Several items of Annexure-II, of the charge sheet are not having sufficient calculation.
Patna High Court
State Of Bihar vs Lalu Prasad And Ors.
Honourable Judges Ramesh Kumar Datta
Date of Judgment: 20 September 2007
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 1
Relevancy Score: 59.99
1. The present Government appeal has been filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the State of Bihar against the Judgment and order of acquittal dated 18.12.2006 passed by Shri Munni Lal Paswan. Special Judge, CBI (AHD). Patna in Special Case No. 5 of 1998 by which the learned Special Judge has acquitted both the accused Dersons on the charge of possessing assets disproportionate to the known sources Of ihcoma so far as the respondent No. 1 is concerned and on the charge of abetting the same with resosct to respondent No. 2. The charges had been framed under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the respondent No. 1. Lalu Prasad Yadav and under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against respondent No. 2. Smt. Rabri Devi. 2. After hearing learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) which has been arrayed as respondent No. 3 notices had been issued earlier to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to show cause as to why the leave to appeal be not granted. 3. Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has at the outset raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the appeal on behalf of the State of Bihar. Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati, learned Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent No. 3. the CBI. supports the said contention. Mr. Surendra Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, on the other hand, contends to the contrary submitting that the appeal is maintainable in view of the express language of Section 378 Cr.P.C. as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of Khemrai v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Eknath Shankarrao Mukkawar v. State of Maharashtra . 4. In support of his above stand, it is stated by Mr. Jethmalani that in the present matter the CBI under the directions of this Court has conducted the investigation and not on the basis of any request made by the State Government. It is submitted that the State Government had nothing to do with the investigation or conduct of the case before the trial Court.
Disclaimer: The information provided on this website is intended for informational purposes only and is designed to assist legal professionals, law students, and other professionals such as Chartered Accountants (CA), Company Secretaries (CS), and Cost and Management Accountants (CMA). Patodia Infotech Private Limited utilizes artificial intelligence (AI) to generate information based on various laws, acts of India, and judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts, and Tribunals of India. However, we do not make any guarantees regarding the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the information provided.
Legal professionals are advised to independently verify the information and conduct their own research to validate its applicability to specific cases or situations. The contents of this website do not constitute legal advice, and reliance on them should be at the discretion and risk of the individual legal professional.
Patodia Infotech Private Limited hereby disclaims all representations and warranties, express or implied, regarding the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability of the contents. We shall not be liable for any loss or damage arising from the use of or reliance on the information provided on this website.
By accessing and using this website, you agree to indemnify and hold harmless Patodia Infotech Private Limited and its affiliates from any claims, damages, losses, or liabilities arising from your use of or reliance on the information presented herein.
Legal professionals are advised to independently verify the information and conduct their own research to validate its applicability to specific cases or situations. The contents of this website do not constitute legal advice, and reliance on them should be at the discretion and risk of the individual legal professional.
Patodia Infotech Private Limited hereby disclaims all representations and warranties, express or implied, regarding the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability of the contents. We shall not be liable for any loss or damage arising from the use of or reliance on the information provided on this website.
By accessing and using this website, you agree to indemnify and hold harmless Patodia Infotech Private Limited and its affiliates from any claims, damages, losses, or liabilities arising from your use of or reliance on the information presented herein.