1 Appln: 4736/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4736 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra … Applicant Vs. Babasaheb Shankar Patil ... Respondents & Ors. Mr. V.B. Kondedeshmuh, APP for State. CORAM : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 9th December, 2010 P.C.:- 1. This is an application filed by the State for leave to prefer appeal against the judgment and order dated 15th June 2010, passed by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli in Special Case (ACB) No.1 of 2005, acquitting the respondents of the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 109 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Respondent no.1 Babasaheb Patil was serving as Sectional Engineer in Public Works, Sub Division, Panchayat Samitee, Jath. Respondent no. 2 is his wife and respondent no.3 is the 2 Appln: 4736/2010 son. The Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Pune directed PW-1, Sanjay Surve, Police Inspector, ACB Sangli vide letter dated 13th May 2001 to conduct discrete enquiry into the property of respondent no.1, in view of receipt of anonymous complaint dated 23rd August 2000. The complaint alleged that respondent no.1 owned several immovable properties in the names of himself and his family and also cash and gold, which was disproportionate to his known source of income. PW-1 accordingly held the enquiry and submitted his report to S.P., ACB, Pune, pursuant to which a complaint came to be filed against respondents at Sangli for the offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. The prosecution examined in all seven witnesses. Respondents examined two persons as defence witnesses. On appreciation of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge arrived at the following conclusion: “The cumulative effect of evidence on record about the total income of accused no.1 Babasaheb and about the valuation of his house properties is that the said evidence is not cogent and sufficient. As already observed, the income of accused no.1 Babasaheb from his T.A. & D.A, selling gold and selling sugarcane comes to Rs.4,27,835/- and therefore, the total income of accused no.1 Babasaheb is certainly more than what has been shown in the complaint Exh 43 and in the evidence of Shri Sanjay Surve (PW 1). Similarly, the valuation of the house properties of accused no.1, Babasaheb is not correct and accurate, but the same may be less than what has been shown by Shri Sanjay Surve (PW 1). When the evidence on record is of 3 Appln: 4736/2010 such type that it leads to draw two contrary inferences, it is well settled principle that the inference which favours the accused is to be accepted. Having regard to the said legal principle, I hold that the valuation of the house properties of accused No.1 Babasaheb is less than what has been shown, whereas the total income of accused no.1 Babasaheb is more than what has been shown by prosecution. Thus, prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the all known sources of income of accused no.1 Babasaheb and that the property owned by him is disproportionate to his known sources of income”. 4. Perusal of the records shows that PW-1 had admittedly not looked into any income of respondent no.1, other than his salary from the employment with the government. There is sufficient material on record to show that the respondent no.1 does have income from other sources i.e. agricultural income as well as amount received by way of T.A. and D.A. in connection with his work etc. In these circumstances, the trial Court rightly arrived at the conclusion of acquittal of the respondents. I have carefully gone through the entire record of the case. I am of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly arrived at the decision of acquittal of the respondents. No interference is required into the findings and decision at the hands of this Court. Hence, the application is rejected. (Smt.R.P. SondurBaldota, J.)