Kedari Lal vs State Of Mp

2. The appellant joined the services of Public Health Engineering Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh on 15.07.1978 as Assistant Engineer and thereafter served in various capacities. According to the prosecution, during the period of 15.07.1978 to 9.02.1994, the appellant had earned total amount of Rs.3,86, 966/- as public servant but he was found to be in possession of assets worth Rs.7,97,243/- at the end of that period and as such he was in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the tune of Rs.4,08,077/-. Accordingly Crime No. 17 of 1994 was registered on 9.02.1994 by the Special Police Establishment, Lokayukta Sanghthan for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the Act, for short). After conducting appropriate investigation chargesheet was filed and the appellant was accordingly charged and tried.

3. The prosecution in support of its case examined 10 witnesses. The defence of the appellant was that:-

laws, (ii) he had received certain sums as and by way of his share in family partition, (iii) he had received bequest under the will executed by his mother, and (iv) he had taken loan or advances for purchase of plot and construction from his relations and friends. It was submitted that every such receipt was duly intimated by him to the department. The details of such receipt and intimation as submitted, are as under:-

4. The appellant had thus intimated the department on every occasion that he received any advance or gifts or share in partition or entitlement by way of bequest. These facts are spoken to by various prosecution witnesses. Moreover, the appellant had filed his Income Tax Return on 28.09.1992, which clearly reflected the details of the loan transactions and the amounts that he had received. Copy of the Income Tax Return was also filed with the department on 5.01.1994, well before the present F.I.R. was filed on 9.02.1994. The appellant submitted that if these amounts which were duly intimated and stood reflected in his Income Tax Returns were to be taken into account, the alleged disproportionate assets would not be to the tune of Rs.4,08,077/- but would stand reduced to the sum of Rs.37,605/-.

14. In our view there is no violation of Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. We, therefore, set aside the judgment and order in appeal and acquit the appellant of the charges leveled against him. The appeal thus succeeds and is allowed. The appellant is already on bail. The bail bonds shall stand discharged.

.............................J. (Dipak Misra) .............................J. (Uday Umesh Lalit) New Delhi, March 23, 2015 ITEM NO.1D COURT NO.12 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 782/2011 KEDARI LAL Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF M.P. Respondent(s) Date : 23/03/2015 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of judgment today.

For Appellant(s) Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Sopriya Uneja, Adv.

Ms. Shradha Karol, Adv.

Mr. Vipin Kumar Saxena, Adv.

Mr. Rajeev K. Sinha, Adv.

Mr. Anoop Kr. Srivastav, Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit pronounced the non-reportable judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and His Lordship.

The appeal is allowed. The appellant is already on bail. The bail bonds shall stand discharged in terms of the signed non-reportable judgment.

(Signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file)