[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.1532 OF 2007 IN CRI.APPEAL NO. OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant Vs. Sau.Sarojini Pravin Devarshi and Ors. ..Respondents ... Mr.Y.S.Shinde APP for State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JUNE 02, 2008 DATE : JUNE 02, 2008 DATE : JUNE 02, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The Applicant-State has preferred this application for leave to file an appeal against the judgment and order dated 3.1.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge, Sangli in Special Case No.10 of 2001. By the said judgment and order, the learned Special Judge acquitted the Respondents-accused of the offences under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. I have heard the learned APP for the [-2-] Applicant-State. I have perused the impugned judgment and order as well as the evidence which has been produced by the learned APP. 3. The prosecution case is that Respondent-accused no.1 is a public servant. She was appointed as a clerk on 18.12.2004 in the Sub-Registrar’s office. Enquiry as to the assets of the accused no.1 was conducted by the ACB Pune for the period from 18.12.1974 to 31.12.1998. It was found that accused no.1 received the amount of Rs.11,01,000/- from the known source of income. On compulsory and discretionary expenses for family, which included purchase of some property, amount of Rs.5,09,885/- was spent. It was also found that she acquired movable and immovable property wroth Rs.8,72,500/-. Thus, it is alleged by prosecution that wealth worth Rs.2,81,385/- was found to be disproportionate to the known source of income of accused No.1 and Accused Nos.2 to 4 i.e. husband and children of accused no.1 committed criminal conspiracy and abetted the accused no.1 to gain income and to possess the property, disproportionate to the known source of her income. [-3-] 4. It is an admitted fact that all the accused were living together as a joint family. Accused no.2 who is the spouse of accused no.1, as per certificate of ITI is a diploma holder mechanic. Prosecution accepts that since 1970-1998 for 28 years, he was doing some job for earning the livelihood. From the evidence, he appears to be holding ancestral house property. He claims to have recovered rents also from tenants. However, no investigation about such income or otherwise has been conducted. An amount of Rs.1.62 lakh is shown to be income of accused no.2 (husband) from his salary, alleged to have earned from private employment, assuming his monthly income to be Rs.500/-. Thus, Rs.500/- x 12=6000 per year x 28 years= 1.62 lakhs which is purely an arbitrary action of ACB. On what basis this figure is arrived at. There is no further inquiry as to who was the employer of accused No.2 and how much salary was being paid to him. From 1996 onwards, accused no.2 submitted the Income Tax returns. Investigation possibly could have shown exact figures of his income from private employment and rent from house. It was possible for I.O. to seek copies of yearly assessment lists of accused to know the source of [-4-] income shown by the accused. However, no such investigation has been conducted. PW 2 Shri.Mane, Dy.S.P. stated that accused no.2 was in the private service from the age of his majority. He stated that however, he does not know whether in the ancestral house of accused no.2, there were tenants. He has not collected any other documents about assets of accused no.1 than the documents filed on record. He admitted that the accused persons constitute a joint family. 5. It is further the prosecution case that some property was purchased benami by accused no.1 in the name of her daughter. As far as this aspect is concerned, the daughter of accused no.1 appears to have been married during her minority. The properties acquired in her name in the year 1988 as per the copy of the sale deed, seems to have been acquired under the guardianship of her husband. From the contents of the sale deed, the amount of consideration was paid through the guardian. There is no evidence to establish that the said guardian was not having any source to provide amount for consideration or that the accused provided the amount of consideration to purchase immovable [-5-] property "Benami" in the name of her daughter. 6. It is further the prosecution case that plot No.16 was purchased by accused no.1 in the year 1980 in the Krantisinha Nana Patil Co-Op. Housing Society. Accused NO.1 paid Rs.1750/- on 14.11.1980 and Rs.4100/- on 1.1.1981. It is not established by any rate that during the financial year from April 1980 to March 1981 the accused no.1 was not holding capacity to save Rs.5800/- for purchase of the said plot from the society. If the average gross salary at the rate of Rs.600/- p.m. is taken as per salary record of that year, accused no.1 received over Rs.7500/-, from which Rs.2500/- could have been accepted saving of that year. Therefore, it was not impossible by adding the previous year’s saving to the saving of that year, to make the amount of Rs.5800/- to purchase the plot from the society. 7. It is also pertinent to note that the loans obtained by accused no.1 have been shown in the income side by the Investigating Officer and that is how the total figure relating to disproportionate income has been arrived at by the [-6-] Investigating Agency. Thus, it is seen that taking the yearly income and expenditure figures of gross period of the inquiry, prosecution miserably failed to establish criminal misconduct committed by accused no.1 being public servant in office. 8. Looking to the evidence on record, the view taken by the learned Special Judge is a reasonable and possible view. 9. It is well settled that if the view of acquittal could have been reasonably arrived at then the mere circumstance that the appellate Court would have taken a different view, would be no ground to interfere. In this connection, there is no dearth of authorities but to eschew prolixity, I am referring to only two of them i.e. AIR 1971 AIR 1971 AIR 1971 S.C. 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar S.C. 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar S.C. 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and C. Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair (2003) 1 SCC and C. Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair (2003) 1 SCC and C. Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair (2003) 1 SCC 1. 1. 1. In the case of C.Anthony C.Anthony C.Anthony, the Supreme Court has observed that unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse or contrary to the material on record, the High Court cannot in appeal substitute its findings, merely because another contrary opinion was possible on the basis of material on [-7-] record. 10. As stated earlier, the view taken by the learned Special Judge is a reasonable and possible view, hence, no interference is called for. 11. In this view of the matter, application for leave to appeal is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]