Vasant Rao Guhe vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

3. The genesis of the prosecution lies in a complaint lodged by one Khuman Singh, resident of Betul Ganj alleging that the appellant, who at the relevant time was holding the office of Sub-Engineer, Irrigation Department, Mahi Project Patelabad, Jhabua, by abusing his post, had acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. FIR No.136 Dated 27.10.1992 was registered by Inspector, S.P. Establishment, Divisional Lokayukt, Office Bhopal and on the completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was laid to the effect that during the check period between 1970 to 1992, after adjusting the income and expenditure of the appellant, he was found to have acquired, by applying corrupt and illegal means while acting as a public servant, assets valued Rs.7,94,033/- which was disproportionate to his known sources of income and had thereby committed an offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Act.

5. As the charge would disclose, the appellant during the check period was shown to have earned total income of Rs.1,95,637/- and after accounting for an expenditure of 60% thereof towards household needs, he had a saving of Rs.79,045/-. However, having regard to his bank deposits and his investments in plots and a house that he had built on one of those, he had expended thereby an amount of Rs.9,89,670/- during the said period and thus was possessed of assets to the tune of Rs.7,94,033/- which was disproportionate to his known sources of income.

6. At the trial, the prosecution adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. Its witnesses included amongst others Inspector A.J. Khan (PW6), the investigating officer and Inspector, Roop Singh Solanki (PW2) who did follow up the investigation taking the baton from PW6. As the testimony of these two witnesses is of decisive bearing and demonstrable from the analysis of the evidence as embarked upon by the Courts below, reference thereto is indispensable. 4

8. Roop Singh Solanki (PW2) who took over the investigation from PW6 stated that particulars of the income and expenditure for the check period were drawn up by him and were handed over to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Commissioner, Bhopal. According to him, the total income of the appellant from pay during the check period was Rs.1,94,365/- which together with the interest on the amount deposited in the bank was Rs.1,95,637/-. According to this witness, if 60% expenditure towards household necessities of the appellant and his family is deducted therefrom, his saving would be of Rs.79,045/-. In that premise, the expenditure of the appellant having been recorded to be Rs.9,89,670/-, the charge of disproportionate asset unrelatable to his known sources of income stood established. This witness in his cross-examination however admitted that 5 from records, the annual agricultural income of the appellant appeared to be Rs.1,25,000/- which for the check period would amount to Rs.27,00,000/-. He conceded further that the appellant’s salary for the period October 1970 to June 1974, September 1979 to October 1979 and March 1982 to August 1990 had not been accounted for by the earlier investigating officer and admitted as well to have not added the same to the income of the appellant. This witness testified as well the agricultural annual income of Rs.10,000/- from village Baghoda which for the check period was quantifiable at Rs.2,22,000/- and thus his total agricultural income over the check period was Rs.29,22,000/-. He admitted as well that this agricultural income and the omitted amount of pay, if added, there would be no disproportionate assets qua the appellant.

10. Similarly, the Trial Court referred to the documents on record produced by the prosecution with regard to the agricultural lands at Devbhilai and Baghoda villages in the name of the appellant, his father and two brothers which disclosed an annual income of Rs.1,35,000/- including the cost of agriculture etc. Though the Trial Court initially was reluctant to accept this figure in absence of any clarification offered by the appellant albeit the evidence to that effect was produced by the prosecution, it eventually acted on the same and after deducting 60% therefrom towards the expenses/investments was of the view that annually an amount of Rs.54,000/- was available to the appellant, his father and the two brothers as agricultural income. The Trial Court quantified 1/4th of this figure in the share of the appellant and computed it to be Rs.13,500/- per 7 annum which for 22 years i.e. the check period was calculated at Rs.2,97,000/-. According to it, thus at the end of the check period the appellant had at his disposal, from agricultural income and saving from pay Rs.4,20,061/-.

13. The High Court in turn, while noticing the aspect that the prosecution while laying the charge-sheet had not accounted for the income of the appellant by way of pay for the aforementioned periods as well as receipts from agricultural lands, reduced the household expenditure from 60% to 50% thereby generating for the appellant, savings of Rs.1,53,826/-. Qua the agricultural income as well, the cost of production and other investments were scaled down to 50% but agreed with the Trial Court that the agricultural lands being the joint family property of the appellant, his father and two brothers, he was entitled to only 1/4th share from the income therefrom at the rate of Rs.16,875/- which was worked out to be Rs.3,71,250/- for the check period. The High Court thus computed the savings from the salary and the agricultural earnings to be Rs.5,25,076/-. It endorsed the price of the plots of land as accepted by the Trial Court but fixed the value of the construction of the house at Rs.1,63,660.44/-. It 10 then proceeded to decide on the charge by accepting the total income of the appellant to be Rs.5,25,076/- and the expenditure as Rs.6,11,121/-. The other segments of the expenditures, as accepted by the Trial Court, were affirmed by it. Based on this computation, the High Court having found the appellant to be in possession of Rs.86,045/- which was in excess of 10% of his income from known sources i.e. Rs.5,25,076/- affirmed his conviction and sentence as awarded by the learned Trial Court. It however dismissed the appeal of the State seeking forfeiture of this amount which the Trial Court too had declined.

22. In view of the materials on record and the state of law as above, we are thus of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt the charge of criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act and punishable under Section 13(2) thereof against the appellant. He is thus entitled to the benefit of doubt. The prosecution to succeed in a criminal trial has to pitch its case beyond all reasonable doubt and lodge it in the realm of “must be true” category and not rest contended by leaving it in the domain of “may be true”. We are thus left unpersuaded by the charge laid by the prosecution and the adjudications undertaken 1 (2009) 15 SCC 200 17 by the Courts below. The conviction and sentence, thus is set aside. The appeal is allowed.

AUGUST 09, 2017.