.^, - \s KV:.:'SS"f"SSSS3S!Ss^ ^:.:"^'1^^^^!^ ' ''^^^•'y^^^s^S ;i:^:..-iiS"%38B^S ifsf8^^ •l-'lp'OP di. p. 7 (n ^^s <*:.'**• ^MOt llt •-'^®ti ;Si§?0' ^^g'p; ;yi'&-;g"ii ^'-••'Sl» m WK .f-*l. ;»> '^••'••:^\ ^Rf'b' slIBI'l' is;l§l®''n'r)-' ffi':.^fl);.(S.; ^•"f<,fft- tn ?l^l;(Bi .(•»-(«) feiji'ii'^ s :,ViS. ^ rt ® o ©p- O "8 'ni;®. ". p .63 I* ®l@i 18j iSI;;^% 1-KV VSSiS:M!:: iSaKf WW^- IfiKfiMS^ ^fM'S^^:'^:'^ wSis'MK^SWS ^;;:'?'?^^;^^.^'i-? '..,'^s ^^.^^^^^^^M. ^^^S^'&iss^^M B—n' !7 y- y^Ks. ii S. ' /<i<'^-£%1 &».-fi1/' ^ S .A< HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Acquittal Appeal No. 74 of 2010 APPELLANT RESPONDENT VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Krishan Mohan Khare Shri Pravin Das Dy. GA for the appellant/State. Shri V.C. Ottalwar counsel for the respondent/accused. CRIIVIINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 (3) OF TME CODE OF CRIiVIINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (28.02.2011) This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 29.4.1999 passed by the Special Judge, Bilaspur in Special Gase No. 21/1997 acquitting the respondent/accused ofthe offences under SeFtions 13 (1) (e) and 13 (2) ofthe Prevention ofCorruption Act. ~ _ 2. Facts of the case in brief are that at the relevant time the respondent/accused was working as Executive Engineer in the Water Resources Department. On the basis of information received by the Lokayukta Police on 23.12.1995 raid was conducted in the house of the respondenVaccused and an inventory Ex. P-17 was prepared. On enquiry, respondent/accused was found to be in possessipn of assets disproportionate to his known source of income. After investigation, charge sheet was filed by the police under Sections 13 (1)(e) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.It is alleged that during the check period i.e. from 1.1.1976 to 31.12.1995 the total income of the respondenVaccused comes to Rs. 8, 51,205 but his expenditure for the said period comes to Rs. 25,26,286. Thus according to the case of the prosecution the respondent/accused was found to be in -possession of disproportionate assets to hisknownsource of income to the extent of Rs. 16, 75,081. On 16.6.1998 the trial Court framed charges --•c^^ ..'.^"^ -^ 'a ^ v\. .^s'"'^.. ? >i y?:';::y l"s'(8' s Sl^ "''"' ^ —•i— against him under sections 13 (1) (e) and 13 (2) ofthe Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. So as to prove the guilt of the respondent/accused the prosecution has examined as many as 24 witnesses. Six persons namely Smt. Asha Khare (DW-1), Mathura Devi Khare (DW-2), Vijay Kumar Bhatnagar (DW-3), Bhavani Das Yadav (DW-4), Raja Ram (DW-5) and Vipin Kumar Verma were examined by the defence in support of its case. Statement of the accused/respondent was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the allegation made against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing counsel for the parties the Court below has acquitted the respondent/accused of the charges levelled against him by the judgment impugned. Hence this appeal. 5. Counsel for the appellant/State submits that resp6iTderTf?accused was found to be in possession of disproportionate assets to the extent of Rs. 16, 75, 081 and no substantive piece of evidence was broxiSht on record by him to justify the same. He submits that full opportunity was given to him to adduce the evidence in support of his case but he has utterly failed to do so. He submits that the respondent/accused has failed to justify his income under various heads but the Court below has wrongly calculated the same and held that the assets in his possession were not disproportionate to his known source of income. He submits that the Court below has committed an error in holding that the prosecution has produced the escalated figure under various heads and the finding so recorded is perverse. 6. On the other hand counsel for the respondent /accused supports thejudgment impugned and submits that out ofthe amount of Rs. 1,18,939 shown as cash recovered during the raid, Rs. 97, 000 were withdrawn from the GPF a few days prior to the raid which has been duly proved by the respondent/accused. He submits that in respect of valuation of immovable property worth Rs. 5,13,480, the respondent/accused has proved that the house in question was ,iT';l..^lii^:, '»•»' ^l 'A, ^-,. ''•..•y ^\ purchased for Rs. 4,15,000. This fact was also proved by Hashim Ali (PW-12). He submits that Rs. 54,455 were incurred by the respondent/accused for registration purpose of the said house which has been proved by Yogesh Shukla (PW-19). He submits that figure of Rs. 1,79,610 arrived at under the head of luxurious items has been erroneously calculated by the prosecution. Hesubmits that G.D. Mittal (PW-9) and Shiv Prakash Kaushik (PW-10) have categorically stated that figures worked out by the prosecution are based on surmises. He submits that agriculture income of the respondent which comes to approximately Rs. 6,00,000 has been completely ignored by the prosecution despite documents of Ex. D-6 and D-7 i.e. the lease agreements of the land proved by Vijay Kumar Bhatnagar (DW-3) and Bhavani Das Yadav (DW-4). According to him, Rs. 37,500 were received by the respondent/accused by selling his ancestral land. He submits that price of ornaments has also been wrongly calculated and statement of Mathura Devi Khare (DW-2) who happens to be aunt of the respQnelent/accused has been completely. ignored by the prosecution. He submits that statement of Mathura Devi Khare (DW- 2) makes it clear that 20 tolas of gold an6- 2 kgs. of silver was given by her to the respondent/accused as she had no surviving relative. He submits that authority to investigate under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act has not been duly proved in accordance with law. 7. Thus from the evidence of the witnesses it is clear that the prosecution has worked out an exaggerated figure of assets in possession of respondent/accused showing the same to be disproportionate to his known source of income. The fiRdings ofthe Court below in taking a corrective approach are based on the material available on record. This Court does not see any infirmity or illegality in the same. Furthermore, being very much conscious of the existing legal position that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis ofevidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view favoured the accused, taking the other plausible view into consideration, is not permissible in law and thei-efore this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment ^. ^ -£<- impugned acquitting the respondent /accused of the offences under Sections 13 (1) (e) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal being without substance is liable to be dismissed. It isaccordingly dismissed. Sd//- , pritinker Diwaker Judge ^ / 'l