1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.243/2009 IN SPECIAL CASE NO. 72/2005 Praveen Chand Mohnot s/o Kishan Mal Mohnot Applicant Vs. The Union of India Respondent Mr.Girish Kulkarni a/w Mr.Himanshu Pradhan i/b M/s Crawford Bayley & Co.for the applicant Mr.Sandeep K.Shinde a/w Mr.S.R.Shinde for Res.no.1/ U.O.I. Mr.J.P.Kharge,APP for State CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J. DATE : 14th SEPTEMBER,2009 P.C. . This Criminal Application is filed against the order dated 9/4/2009 passed by Special Judge under Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 . The applicant/accused is charged for the offences punishable u/s 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 wherein accused no.1 was charged for possessing disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.32,19,000, etc. more than the known source of his income. The accused was working as a Vice President of Unit Trust of India and the check period initially was taken 1989 to 1998 and thereafter the C.B.I. confirmed the period as 1992-1998. 2] The learned counsel or the applicants has argued that while calculating the assets the C.B.I. has not considered the assets which were in the name of his wife 2 and the income and savings of his wife who was working in the bank prior to her marriage . She and her mother are also income tax assessee . It is submitted that as per section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 the public servant has to give explanation for the property which is either possessed by him or it is possessed on his behalf. He further submits that the explanation given by the accused in respect of his source of income and source of income of his wife is not taken into account by the C.B.I. and the C.B.I.has wrongly calculated the income and assets and arrived erroneously at the conclusion that the accused is holding assets disproportionate to his income. He further submits that this aspect is not considered by the learned Special Judge. Hence this application. 3] Per contra the learned Prosecutor appearing for the C.B.I.has drawn my attention to the chart wherein the CBI.has considered the income , expenditure, savings, assets purchased during the period and hence the calculations in respect of disproportionate assets are correct. He pointed out the form filled in and was to be submitted by the purchaser of the property wherein the wife has disclosed the source of income of Rs.26 lacs as own funds and loan from mother and father in law. He submits that in respect of the financial position of mother and father in law and their source of income the CBI.has filed affidavit in reply and has collected the evidence. 4] Considering the submissions of both the learned counsel it is not a case to admit this Revision Application. There is prima facie evidence which the 3 prosecution is in possession to bring before the Court on the point of disproportionate assets. 5] No interference is required in the order passed by the Special Judge. Rejected. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)