SPECIALCASE62of2005

INTHESPECIALCOURTFORGR.BOMBAY, ATBOMBAY EXHIBITNO.389 SPECIALCASENO.62OF2005 TheState (AntiCorruptionBureau,Mumbai videC.R.No.54/2000) VERSUS 1) 2) AjaykumarGyanchandJain A3,MavalFlat,MoledinaRoad, Camp,Pune411001. AnitaAjaykumarJain A3,MavalFlat,MoledinaRoad, Camp,Pune411001.

..Complainant

..Accused

Appearance: Ld.SPPSmt.KalpanaChavanfortheState. Ld.AdvocateShri.ShingnapurkarfortheAccused. CORAM:H.H.TheSpecialJudge(UnderP .C.Act) SHRIV .A.DAULATABADKAR (CourtRoom.No.46) Dated:11.07.2013

JUDGMENT
1. Accusedno.1beingapublicservanthasbeenchargedunder

sections,11,13(1)(e)r/wSec.13(2)ofThePreventionofCorruptionAct, 1988foramassingwealthofRs.48,87,549.16psinhisnameandinthe namesofhisdependentswhichisdisproportionatetotheknownsourcesof hisincomeandhisfamilymemberswhereasaccusedno.2whoisawifeof accusedno.1hasbeenchargedunderSection109ofIndianPenalCodefor

SPECIALCASE62of2005

aiding and abetting accused no. 1 for the commission of offence under Section13(1)(e)r/wSection13(2)ofThePreventionofCorruptionAct, 1988. Caseoftheprosecutionisasunder; 2. Accusedno.1wasbornon07.08.1953.Heishavingthreeyounger

brothersandonesister.Intheyear1974,heobtainedaMastersdegreein ZoologyfromMeerutUniversity.Hismarriagewasperformedwithaccused no.2on28.02.1975andfromthesaidwedlocktheyhavebegottenelder son Rahul on 19.11.1981 and another son Vipul on 07.08.1986. From August1974toJune1981heworkedasaAssociateprofessorinDegree college,MawanasituatedinUtterPradesh.FromJuly1981toAugust1982 accusedno.1servedasaDistrictPanchayatRajOfficeratMujaffarNagar, Utter Pradesh. Thereafter, he was selected by Union Public Service CommissionasaIPSofficerofMaharashtracadreandhejoinedserviceasa trainee IPS officer on 01.09.1982. From 01.09.1982 to 31.01.1984 he undergonetrainingatHyderabadandMasoorie.Thereafter,hewasposted atvariousplacesinMaharashtrafromtheyear1984to1996. 3. On 05.11.1990 Joint Commissioner, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Maharashtra State,Mumbaiwasaskedtokeepadiscreetwatch onthe activitiesofaccusedno.1whothenwasworkingasaDeputyCommissioner

SPECIALCASE62of2005

of Police, Zone IX in Mumbai. Thereafter, on 05.03.1992 Joint Commissioner,AntiCorruptionBureau,Mumbaiorderedadiscreetinquiry in to the assets of accused no. 1 and his family members which was completed on 31.12.1992 and report was forwarded to Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Maharashtra, Mumbai and permission was soughttoconductanopenenquiryintotheassetsofaccusedno.1andhis family members and the said permission was given on 05.03.1994. Accordinglyopenenquirywasconductedrelatingtotheassetsofaccused no.1andhisfamilymembersandthenreporttothateffectwasforwarded totheCompetentAuthority.Duringtheenquiryitwasfoundthataccused no.1hasamassedwealthinhisnameandhisfamilymemberswhichis disproportionate to the known sources of his income and of his family members. Therefore, Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police Shri. Kamalakar Pandurang Sawant then attached to Anti Corruption Bureau, MumbaifiledaFirstInformationReporton06.11.2000againstaccusedno. 1&2fortheoffencesunderSections13(1)(e)r/wSection13(2)ofThe Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w Sec. 109 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly,acrimebearingno.54/2000wasregisteredagainstboththe accusedbyACPWableandinvestigationwascommenced. 4. In the First Information Report it was alleged that from

SPECIALCASE62of2005

01.09.1982to31.03.1995accusedno.1and2,theirtwosons,A.K.Jain (HUF)andSaralkantaJainFamilyTrustofwhichtheaccusedno.2isthe soletrusteehaveearnedincomeofRs.23,53,499/fromknownandlegal sources.Itwasalsoallegedthatduringthesaidperiodtheirexpenseswere foundtobeofRs.9,64,560/andafterdeductingtheseexpensesfromthe income,likelysavingwouldbeofRs.13,88,939/butboththeaccused, theirsons,A.K.Jain(HUF)andSaralkantaJainFamilyTrusthavefoundin possessionofassetsofRs.45,36,956/andasperthesecalculationsaccused no.1foundinpossessionofassetsworthRs.31,48,017/disproportionate to his known sources of income. It was also stated in F.I.R. that certain headsofincomeclaimedbyboththeaccused,theirsonsandtheirfirms havebeenrejectedforcogentandvalidreasons.Complainanthadspeltout descriptionofalltheheadsrelatingtoincome,expenditureandassetsof boththeaccusedandtheirdependentsinF.I.R. 5. After registration of crime, Investigating officers ACP Wable

decidedtocarryoutsearchofthehouseofaccusedaswellasathisother knownaddresses.Accordingly,hedecidedtocarryoutsearchatthehouse ofaccusedsituatedatPuneandinstructedACPRaneandACPSanghaito conductsearchattwootheraddressesoftheaccused. 6. On07.11.2000ACPWablecarriedoutsearchatFlatno.A3,

SPECIALCASE62of2005

Maval flats, Moledina Road, Camp, Pune which belongs to both the accused. At the time of house search, accused no. 2 was present in the houseandsearchwascarriedoutinherpresence.Atthetimeofsearchone valuernamelyShivalkarwasalsocalled.Somegoldandsilverornaments were foundduring the saidsearch.Inventories of allthese articleswere separately prepared. Ornaments were got valued from the valuer. Accordingly, panchanama Exh. 195 was completed by ACP Wable in presence of two panchas. At the time of search ACP Wable seized one receiptExhibit26andvaluationreportExh.197Colly.OnthatdayACP RaneandACPSanghaihavealsocarriedoutsearchattheresidenceofone Rajesh Tripathi and at Deccan Queen Restaurant respectively and seized somedocuments. 7. On08.11.2000boththesearchpanchanamasalongwithseized

documentswereforwardedtoACPWable.ThenACPWablegonethrough the entire papers of enquiry handed over by complainant Sawant. Thereafter,hecalledvariouswitnessesrelatingtothetransactionsentered into by the accused and recorded their statements. He also collected documentary evidence from the witnesses as well as from various authorities. 8. DuringinvestigationACPWablecalleduponboththeaccusedto

SPECIALCASE62of2005

file explanationsinrespect of materialfoundto himrelatingto income, expenditureandassets.Inresponsetoitaccusedno.1filedexplanationon someoccasionsinrespectofsomeoftheitems.However,accusedno.2did notfileanyexplanationinsteadofseveralopportunities. 9. AftercompletionofinvestigationitwasfoundtoACPWablethat

accusedno.1isinpossessionofassetsworthRs.46,80,144.90ps.which were disproportionate to his known sources of income. Accordingly, he preparedafinalreportandthroughhissuperioraproposalwasforwarded toGovernment of Maharashtra to obtain sanction for the prosecution of accused no. 1. Consequently, Government of Maharashtra forwarded proposal to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. After consideringthematerialproduced,GovernmentofIndiainitiallyaccorded sanctionvideExh.217dated2.04.2004.However,itwasfoundthatsome correctionisnecessaryandaccordinglyaspertherequestofGovernmentof Maharashtra, a corrected sanction order Exh. 219 was issued by Government of India on 16.09.2004. Accordingly, ACP M.D. Pawar filed chargesheetagainstboththeaccusedinthiscourt. 10. After filing of the chargesheet, my Ld. Predecessor issued

processagainstaccusedno.1fortheoffencesundersection11,13(1)(e) r/wSec.13(2)ofP .C.Act1988andalsoissuedprocessundersection109

SPECIALCASE62of2005

of IPC against accused no.2 on 08.12.2005. In response to it both the accused have appeared before this court. Thereafter, my Ld. Predecessor framedchargeagainstaccusedno.1u/s11,13(1)(e)r/wSec.13(2)of P .C. Act 1988 and u/s 109 of IPC against accused no.2 at Exhibit 6 on 04.10.2008.Itwasreadovertoboththeaccusedinvernaculartowhich they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Their pleas were recorded at Exhibit7&8respectively.Thereafter,anoticewasgivenbytheprosecution u/s294ofCr.P .C.tothedefenceside.Accusedno.1and2haveadmitted various documents and those were exhibited by my Ld. Predecessor. Thereafter,matterwasproceededfortrial. 11. In order to substantiate charge against both the accused,

prosecutionhasexamined19witnesses.Thereafter,Ld.SPPfiledevidence closepursison08.02.2013atExh.381.Thereafter,thiscourthasrecorded statements of both the accused under section 313 of Code of Criminal ProcedureatExh.382&383respectivelyon20.02.2013.Defenceofboth theaccusedisoftotaldenialandoffalseimplication.Itisalsodefenceof accusedno.1thatcalculationswerenotproperlymadeandtheyhavebeen falselyimplicated.However,noneoftheaccusedhaschosentoadduceany evidenceintheirdefence.Therefore,thiscourtheardargumentsofboththe sidesatlength.BoththesideshavealsofiledseparatechartsatExh.387&

SPECIALCASE62of2005

388respectivelyinrespectofincome,expenditureandassetsinsupportof theircase. 12. Afterconsideringtheoralanddocumentaryevidenceavailable

onrecordandthesubmissionsofboththesides,followingpointsarisefor my determination and I am giving my findings to it in subsequent paragraphs;

Sr.Nos. Points

Findings

WhethersanctionorderExh.290accordedforthe Affirmative 1 prosecutionofaccusedno.1islegalandvalid. Whetherprosecutionhasprovedthataccusedno.1 Affirmative being a public servant during a period from 01.09.1982 to 31.03.1995 amassed assets in his nameandinthenameofaccusedno.2,theirtwo sons,A.K.Jain(HUF)AndS.K.JainFamilyTrust through out India and which are found to be disproportionate to his and his familys known sources of income and they have also failed to account it satisfactorily and thereby guilty of criminalmisconductascontemplatedundersection 2 13(1)(e)r/wsec.13(2)ofP .C.act1988.

SPECIALCASE62of2005

Whetherprosecutionhasprovedthataccusedno.2 Affirmative beingawifeofaccusedno.1hadknowinglyand willing aided and abetted accused no. 1 for acquiringassetsinhernameandinthenameof SaralKantaJainFamilyTrustofwhichsheisthe soletrusteeandtherebycommittedoffenceunder section13(1)(e)r/wsec.13(2)ofP .C.act1988 3 r/wsec.109ofIPC. Whetherprosecutionhasprovedthataccusedno.1 Negative being a public servant between January 1990 to November1991acceptedaMarutiVan,avaluable thingfreeofcostorforinadequateconsideration from a slumlord namely Birendrakumar Muneshwarnath Shukla who then was active withinzoneIX,Mumbaiandconnectedwiththe officialfunctionsof accusedno.1whothen was working as a Deputy Commissioner of Police of that area and thereby committed an offence 4 punishableundersection11ofP .C.Act1988. Whatorder?. 5 As per final order

SPECIALCASE62of2005

10

REASONS ASTOPOINTNO.1 13. Ld.SPPSmt.KalpanaChavansubmittedthatinthiscaseP .W.14

whowasthenworkingasaUnderSecretaryinministryofHomeAffairsof Government of India is examined by the prosecution in order to prove sanctionorderExh.219.Shefurthersubmittedthatwhiledeposingbefore thiscourthestatedthatinitiallyopinionwasobtainedbyGovernmentof MaharashtrafromitsLawandJudiciarydepartmentandthereafterproposal seeking sanction for the prosecution of accused no. 1 was forwarded to GovernmentofIndia.Thereafter,heobtainedopinionofvariousauthorities i.e.of Director of Police,Joint Secretary,Police, Home Secretary,Deputy PrimeMinisterandHomeMinister,VigilanceSectionattachedtoMinistry ofHomeaffairs,DeputyandJointSecretaryofVigilance,CentralVigilance Commission and lastly aproposal was submittedwith Chiefsecretaryof homedepartment.Alltheseauthoritieshavegonethroughtheentirepapers ofinvestigationandafterbeingsatisfiedandwiththeapprovalofHome Minister,GovernmentofIndiasanctionorderfortheprosecutionofaccused no.1hasbeenissuedbyGovernmentofIndia.AccordingtoherP .W.14has signedthesanctionorderonbehalfofGovernmentofIndiaaccordingto

SPECIALCASE62of2005

11

rulesofbusinessframedbyGovernmentofIndia.Therefore,inthiscaseitis immaterialastowhetherP .W.14wascompetenttoremoveaccusedno.1 fromhisserviceattherelevanttime.TheGovernmentofIndiaiscompetent toremoveaccusedno.1fromhisservice.Perusalofsanctionorderalso showsapplicationofmindonthepartofGovernmentofIndia.Nothinghas beenbroughtduringcrossexaminationofP .W.14thatsanctionorderExh. 219hasbeenissuedwithoutapplicationofmind.Therefore,shesubmitted thatprosecutionhasprovedthatavalidsanctionhasbeengivenforthe prosecutionofaccusedno.1. 14. Percontra,Ld.Adv.Shri.Shingnapurkarappearingforboththe

accusedsubmittedthatinsanctionorderExh.219thereisnoreferencethat opinionfromCentralVigilanceCommissionwasobtained.Sanctionorder also shows that incorrect figures in respect of income, expenditure and assetshavebeenshownbythesanctioningauthority.Sanctioningauthority whilegivingsanctionfortheprosecutionofaccusedno.1fortheoffence undersection11hasnotconsideredthatnodocumentwasforwardedto show that Virendrakumar Shukla is a slumlord. Even in absence of this materialsanctionhasbeengivenwronglyfortheoffenceundersection11 of P .C. Act, 1988. In sanction order there is no reference in respect of intimationgivenbyaccusedno.1totheGovernmentaboutacquiringof

SPECIALCASE62of2005

12

assets. Therefore, with these submissions he submitted that there is non applicationofmindonthepartofsanctioningauthorityandthematerial availableonrecordshowsthatsanctionisaccordedinmechanicalmanner. Therefore,forthissolereasonaccusedno.1isentitleforacquittal. 15. Inordertoprovethatalegalandvalidsanctionorderhasbeen

issuedfortheprosecutionofaccusedno.1,prosecutionhasexaminedP .W. 14 Shri. Yashpal Dhinga who in the year 2004 was working as under SecretaryintheMinistryofHomeAffairsofGovernmentofIndia. 16. While deposing before this court this witness has stated that

alongwithproposalhisministryhadreceivedopinionExh.212givenby Law and Judiciary department, Government of Maharashtra. He also deposedthatinitiallytheproposalwasverifiedbyhisdepartmentandthen forwardedtoLawMinistry,GovernmentofIndia.Hefurtherdeposedthat thereafterproposalwasforwardedtovariousauthoritiesrelatedwiththe servicemattersofIPSofficersandfinallyproposalwassubmittedtoHome Ministerwhoaftergoingthroughthepapersgavehisconsentforissuance ofsanctionorder.Inordertoshowthattheconsentsweregivenbyvarious authorities,hehasproducednotesheetsExh.213,214,215&216. 17. Thiswitnessalsodeposedthatafterreceiptofconsentfromall

theconcerns,hepreparedsanctionorderandthensigneditandissuedon

SPECIALCASE62of2005

13

behalfofGovernmentofIndiafortheprosecutionofaccusedno.1forthe offencesundersections11,13(1)(e)r/wSec.13(2)ofP .C.Act,1988. Thoughadv.foraccusedraisedseveralgroundstoshowthatsanctionorder is illegal and invalid but during cross examination nothing has been brought on record in order to show that it was issued in mechanical manner.Duringcrossexaminationcompetencyofthiswitnesstosignthe sanction order has not been challenged by accused no. 1. Only it was suggestedtothiswitnessthatnodocumentstoshowthatVirendrakumar Shukla is a slumlord were forwarded along with investigation papers. However, merely because documents were not forwarded which is a admittedfact,sanctionordercannotbetermedasinvalid.Therewasno reasonforsanctioningauthoritytodisbelievetheallegationsmadebythe investigatingofficerinthisregard. 18. It is settled position of law that giving sanction is a

administrativeactandprimafaciasatisfactionoftheauthorityinrespectof existenceofaprimafaciacaseistheonlyrequirementtoaccordsanction. From sanction order it appears that after going through the material, authoritywassatisfiedabouttheexistenceofprimafaciacaseandtherefore sanctionwasaccordedfortheprosecutionofaccusedno.1.Itisalsosettled positionoflawthatsanctioningauthorityisnotexpectedtositinjudgment

SPECIALCASE62of2005

14

chairandtoanalysethematerialmeticulously.Similarlywhileconsidering the proposal in respect of case pertains to acquiring of disproportionate assets by a public servant, authority is not expected to carry out mathematicalcalculationsandonlytoconsiderastowhetherornotthe assetsshowntobeacquiredbythepublicservantaredisproportionateto hisknownsourcesofincome.Hereinthiscase,perusalofsanctionorder shows that authority had considered all the material aspects in proper mannerandthenaccordedsanction. 19. Ld.SPPinsupportofhercontentionsrightlyplacedherreliance

ononejudgmentofHonbleApexcourtdeliveredinthecaseofStateby PoliceInspector,AppellantV/sT.VankteshMurthy,Respondentreportedin (2004)7S.C.763inwhichfollowingratioislaiddown; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Sc 19 (3) and (4) Offences under the Preventionof Corruption Act Invalidsanction EffectofMerelybecausethereisanyomission,errororirregularityin thematterofaccordingsanctionthatdoesnotaffectthevalidityofthe proceeding unless the court records the satisfaction that such error, omissionorirregularityhasresultedinfailureofjusticeThesaidlogic applies to the appellate or revisional court also On facts, sanction granted by the Superintending Engineer of the Karnataka Electricity

SPECIALCASE62of2005

15

Board was not sufficient to prosecute the accused Trial court dischargingaccused,butgrantinglibertytoprosecutiontoobtainfresh sanctionandfileafreshchargesheetRevisionbeforeHighCourtby State Dismissal of Held, courts below had not kept in view the requirements of subss. (3) and (4) relating to failure of justice Orders of the courts below set aside Trial court directed to record findingsintermsofsubss.(3)(b)and(4)ServiceLawKarnataka Electricity Board Employee (Classification, Disciplinary Control and Appeal) Regulations 1987 Words and phrases Failure of justice CriminalProcedure,1973,Ss.465and401. 20. Therefore, after considering the material available on record

andthelawlaiddownbytheHonbleApexCourtintheabovereferred judgment,thiscourtisoftheopinionthatsanctionaccordedinthepresent casefortheprosecutionofaccusedno.1islegalandvalid.Hence,Ianswer pointno.1intheaffirmative. ASTOPOINTTONO.2&3 21. As both these points are inter dependent, I am taking these

pointstogetherfordiscussioninordertoarriveatproperconclusion. 22. Prior to marshaling evidence available on record, the law

relatingtocasesofdisproportionateassetsandparticularlyinrespectof

SPECIALCASE62of2005

16

Sec.13(1)(e)ofP .C.Act1988isrequiredtobetakenintoaccount.Sec. 13(1)(e)ofP .C.Act1988readsasunder; Criminalmisconductbyapublicservant(1)Apublicservantissaid tocommittheoffenceofcriminalmisconduct (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Ifheoranypersononhisbehalf,isinpossessionorhas,at

anytimeduringtheperiodofhisoffice,beeninpossessionforwhichthe publicservantcannotsatisfactorilyaccount,ofpecuniaryresourcesor propertydisproportionatetohisknownsourcesofincome. Explanation For the purposes of this section, known sources of income means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law,rulesorordersforthetimebeingapplicabletoapublicservant. 23. So reading of this section shows that after a public servant

foundtobeinpossessionofassetsdisproportionatetoknownsourcesof income, then it is for accused to satisfactorily account and to disclose pecuniary resources available to him in order to show that he is not

SPECIALCASE62of2005

17

acquired any assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. Secondly,aspertheexplanationtothissectionthesourcesfromwhichthe incomeisreceivedmustbelawfulsourcesandinadditiontoit,italsoduty ofthepublicservanttointimatealltheincomeandsourcesfromwhichhe acquiredassetsandaccordancewiththeprovisionsoflaw,rulesororders applicabletoapublicservant. 24. Similarly, Hon'ble Apex court in the case of State of

Maharashtra.AppellantV/sVasudeoRamchandra Kaidalvar,Respondent reportedinAIR1981S.C.1186whiledealingwithsec.5(1)(e)oftheold Act,observedinparano.12&13asunder; PreventionofCorruptionAct(2of1947S.5(2)readwithS.5 (1)(e)PublicServantPossessionofassetsdisproportionatetoincome Failure to account satisfactorily for such possession Liable to be convictedforoffenceunderS.5(2)r/wS.5(1)(e)Prosecutionneed notdisproveallpossiblesourcesofhisincome.DecisionofBombayH.C. Reversed(EvidenceAct.1872),Ss.101to104;114) 12. ThetermandexpressionsappearinginS.5(1)(e)oftheAct

arethesameasthoseusedintheoldSection5(3).Althoughthetwo provisionsoperateintwodifferentfield,themeaningtobeassignedto them must be the same. The expression known sources of incomes

SPECIALCASE62of2005

18

meansSourcesknowntotheprosecution,soalso,thesamemeaning mustbegiventothewordsforwhichthepublicservantisunableto satisfactorily account occurring in S. 5 (1) (e). No doubt, S. 4 (1) provides for presumption of guilt in cases falling under S. 5 (1) (e) therein.For,thereasonisobvious.TheprovisioncontainedinS.5(1) (e)oftheActisaselfcontainedprovision.ThefirstpartoftheSection castsaburdenontheprosecutionandthesecondontheaccused.When S.5(1)(e)usesthewordsforwhichthepublicservantisunableto satisfactorilyaccount,itisimpliedthattheburdenisonsuchpublic servant to account for the sources for the acquisition of disproportionate as sets. The High Court, therefore, was in error in holding that a public servant charged for having disproportionate assets in his possession for which he can not satisfactorily account cannotbeconvictedofanoffenceunderSection5(2)readwithSection 5(1)(e)oftheActunlesstheprosecutiondisprovesallpossiblesources ofincome. 13. Thattakesustothedifficultquestionastothenatureand

extentoftheburdenofproofundersection5(1)(e)oftheAct.The expression burden of proof has two distinct meanings (1) the legal burden,i.e.theburdenofestablishingtheguilt,and(2)theevidential

SPECIALCASE62of2005

19

burden, i.e. the burden of leading evidence. In a criminal trial, the burdenofprovingeverythingessentialtoestablishthechargeagainst the accused lies upon the prosecution, and that burden never shifts. Notwithstanding the general rule that the burden of proof lies exclusively upon the prosecution, in the case of certain offences, the burdenofprovingaparticularfactinissuemaybelaidbylawuponthe accused.Theburdenrestingontheaccusedinsuchcasesis,however,no soonerousasthatwhichliesontheprosecutionandisdischargedby proof of a balance of probabilities. The ingredients of the offence of criminal misconduct under S. 5 (2) read with S. 5 (1) (e) are the possessionofpecuniaryresourcesorpropertydisproportionatetothe known sources of income for which the public servant can not satisfactorilyaccount.Tosubstantiatethecharge,theprosecutionmust provethefollowingfactsbeforeitcanbringacaseunderS.5(1)(E) namely,(1)itmustestablishthattheaccusedisapublicservant(2)the natureandextentofthepecuniaryresourcesorpropertywhichwere found in his possession, (3) it must be proved as to what were his knownsourcesofincomei.e.knowntotheprosecution,and(4)itmust prove, quite objectively, that such resources or property found in possessionoftheaccusedweredisproportionatetohisknownsourcesof

SPECIALCASE62of2005

20

income. Once these four ingredients are established, the offence of criminalmisconductunderS.5(1)(e)iscompleteunlesstheaccusedis abletoaccountforsuchresourcesorproperty.Theburdenthenshiftsto the accused to satisfactorily account for his possession of disproportionate assets. The extent and nature of burden of proof resting upon the public servant to be found in possession of disproportionateassetsunderSection5(1)(e)cannothigherthanthe testlaidbythecourtinJhaganscase(AIR1966SC1762)Supra,i.e.to establishhiscasebyapreponderanceofprobability.Thattestwaslaid down by the court following the dictum of Viscount Sankey, L.C. in Woolmington V. Director of Public Prosecutions (1935) AC 462. The High Court has placed an impossible burden on the prosecution to disproveallpossiblesourcesofincomewhichwerewithinthespecial knowledgeoftheaccused.AslaiddowninSwamyscase(AIR1960SC 7)(Supra),theprosecutioncannot,intheverynatureofthings,be expectedtoknowtheaffairsofpublicservantfoundinpossessionof resourcesorpropertydisproportionatetohisknownsourcesofincome, i.e.hissalary.Thosewillbemattersspeciallywithintheknowledgeof thepublicservantwithinthemeaningofS.106oftheEvidenceAct, 1872,Section106reads:

SPECIALCASE62of2005

21

Section106,Whenanyfactisespeciallywithintheknowledgeofany person,theburdenofprovingthatfactisuponhim. Inthisconnection,thephrasetheburdenofproofisclearlyusedinthe secondarysense,namely,thedutyofintroducingevidence.Thenature andextentoftheburdencastontheaccusediswellsettled.Theaccused isnotboundtoprovehisinnocencebeyondallreasonabledoubt.All thatheneeddoistobringoutapreponderanceofprobability. 25. Whiledealingwithscopeofsection5(1)(e)oftheP .C.Actof

1964 which is almost identical to sec. 13 (1) (e) of the present Act, constitution bench of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of K. Veeraswami,AppellantV/sUnionsofIndia&Ors,Respondentsobserved inpara72to74asunder; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 Section 5 & 6 Held (per majority:BvermaJ.contra),applicabletoJudgesofHighCourtsand SupremeCourtincludingChiefJusticeofIndia. 72. the soundness of the reasoning in Wasudeo Ramchandra

Kaidlwarcasehasbeendoubted.Counselfortheappellanturgedthat theviewtakenonSection 5(3)cannotbeimportedtoclause(e)of Section5(1)andthedecision,therefore,requiresreconsideration.But we do not think that the decision requires reconsideration. It is

SPECIALCASE62of2005

22

significanttonotethatthereisusefulparallelfoundinSection5(3) and clause (e)ofSection5(1).Clause(e)createsastatutoryoffence whichmustbeprovedbytheprosecution.Itisfortheprosecutionto prove that the accused or any person on his behalf, has been in possession of pecuniaryresourcesor propertydisproportionatetohis known sources of income. When that onus is discharged by the prosecution, it is for the accused to account satisfactorily for the disproportionality of the properties possessed by him. The section makesavailablestatutorydefencewhichmustbeprovedbytheaccused. Itisarestricteddefencethatisaccordedtotheaccusedtoaccountfor the disproportionality of the assets over the income. But the legal burdenofproofplacedontheaccusedisnotsoonerousasthatofthe prosecution. However, it is just not throwing some doubt on the prosecutionversion.Thelegislaturehasadvisedlyusedtheexpression satisfactorily account. The emphasis must be on the word satisfactorily.Thatmeansthataccusedhastosatisfythecourtthat hisexplanationisworthyofacceptance.Theburdenofproofplacedon the accused isan evidentialburdenthoughnotapersuasiveburden. The accused however, could discharge that burden of proof on the balance of probabilities either from the evidence of the prosecution

SPECIALCASE62of2005

23

and/or/evidencefromthedefence. 73. Thisproceduremaybecontrarytothewellknownprinciple

of criminal jurisprudence laid down in Woolmington v. Director of Public Prosecutions that the burden of proof is always on the prosecutionandnevershiftstotheaccusedperson.Butparliamentis competenttoplacetheburdenonthecertainaspectsontheaccusedas well and particularly in matter specially within his knowledge. (Section106oftheEvidenceAct.)Adroitly,asobservedinSwamycase (atp.469)andreiteratedinWasudeocase(atp.683:SCCp.205),the prosecutioncannot,intheverynatureofthing,expectedtoknowthe affairsofapublicservantfoundinpossessionofresourcesorproperty disproportionate to his known sources of income. It is for him to explain. Such a statute placing burden on the accused can not be regardedasunreasonable,unjustorunfair.Noritcanberegardedas contrary to Article 21 of the Constitution as contended for the appellant. It may be noted that the principle re affirmed in Woolmingtoncaseisnotauniversalruletobefollowedineverycase. Theprincipleisappliedonlyintheabsenceofstatutoryprovisiontothe contrary.(seetheobservationsofLordTemplemanandLordGriffithsin RigV.Hunt.)

SPECIALCASE62of2005 74.

24

Counselfortheappellanthowever,submittedthatthereisno

law prohibiting a public servant having in his possession assets disproportionatetohisknownsourcesofincomeandsuchpossession becomes an offence of criminalmisconductonlywhentheaccusedis unabletoaccountforit.Counselseemstobefocusingtoomuchonlyon onepartofclause(e)ofSection5(1).Thefirstpartofclause(e)of Section5(1)asseenearlierrelatestotheproofofassetspossessedby thepublicservant.Whentheprosecutionprovesthatthepublicservant possessesassetsdisproportionatetohisknownsourcesofincome,the offence of criminal misconduct is attributed to the public servant. However,itisopentothepublicservanttosatisfactorilyaccountfor suchdisproportionalityofassets.Butthatisnotthesamethingtostate thatthereisnooffencetillthepublicservantisabletoaccountforthe excess of assets. If onepossessassetsbeyondhislegitimatemeans, it goeswithoutsayingthattheexcessisoutofillgottengain.Theassets are not drawn like nitrogen from the air. It has to be acquired for which means are necessary. It is for the public servant to prove the sourceofincomeorthemeansbywhichheacquiredtheassets.Thatis thesubstanceofclause(e)ofSection5(1). 26. Similarly,whiledealingwiththetermusedintheexplanation

SPECIALCASE62of2005

25

tosec.13(1)(e)asknownsourcesofincomeHon'bleApexcourtinthe caseofN.Ramkrishnaiah(Dead)throughL.R.V/sStateofA.P .Reported in2009Cri.L.J.asobservedinpara14&15asunder; 14. Section13ofPreventionofCorruptionAct,1988(inshort

theAct)dealswithvarioussituationswhenapublicservantcanbesaid tohavecommittedcriminalmisconduct.Clause(e)ofSubSection(1)of theSectionisapplicablewhenthepublicservantoranypersononhis behalf,isinthepossessionorhas,atanytimeduringtheperiodofhis office, been in possession for which the public servant can not satisfactorily account of pecuniary resources of property disproportionate to his known sources of income. Clause (e) of Sub Section(1)ofSection56oftheOldActwasinsimilarlines.Butthere have been drastic amendments under the new clause, the earlier conceptofknownsourceofincomehasundergonearadicalchange. As per the explanation appended, the prosecution is relieved of the burdenofinvestigatingintosourceofincomeofanaccusedtoalarge extent,asitisstatedintheexplanationthatknownsourcesofincome ofanaccusedtoalargeextentasitisstatedintheexplanationthat known sources of income means income received from any lawful sources,thereceiptofwhichhasbeenintimatedinaccordancewiththe

SPECIALCASE62of2005

26

provisionsofanylaw,rulesorordersforthetimebeingapplicabletoa publicservant.Theexpressionknownsourceofincomehasreference tosourcesknowntotheprosecutionafterthoroughinvestigationofthe case.Itisnotandcannotbecontendedthatknownsourcesofincome meanssourcesknowntotheaccused.Theprosecutioncannotin theverynatureofthingsbeexpectedtoknowtheaffairsofanaccused person.Thosewillbemattersspeciallywithintheknowledgeofthe accusedwithingthemeaningofSection106oftheIndianEvidenceAct, 1872(inshort,theEvidenceAct. 15. Theemphasisofthephraseknownsourcesofincomein

section13(1)(e)(oldSection5(1)(e)isclearlyonthewordincome. Itwouldbeprimarytoobservethatquathepublicservant,theincome would be what is attachedtohisofficeorpostcommonlyknownas remunerationorsalary.Thetermincomebyitself,isclassicandhasa wide connotation. Whatever comes in or is received is income. But, however,widetheimportandconnotationofthetermincome,itis incapableofbeingunderstoodasmeaningreceipthavingnonexusto oneslabour,expertise,orproperty,orinvestment,andbeingfurthera sourcewhichmayormaynotyieldaregularrevenue.Theseessential characteristics are vital in understanding the term Income.

SPECIALCASE62of2005

27

Therefore,itcanbesaidthatthoughincomeinreceiptinthehandof its recipient, every receipt would not partake into the character of income.forthepublicservant,whateverreturnhegetsofhisservice, will be the primary item of his income. Other income which can conceivably be income qua the public servant will be in the regular receipt from (a) his property, or (b) his investment. A receipt from windfall,orgainofgraftcrimeorimmoralsecretionsbypersonsprima faciewouldnotbereceiptfortheknownsourceofincomeofapublic servant. 27. Soaftergoingthroughthesepronouncementsandinthelight

ofsection13(1)(e)thepositionwhichemergesisthatonceprosecution has proved that a public servant is in the possession of assets disproportionatetoknownsourcesofhisincome,thenburdenwouldshift ontheshouldersofpublicservanttoaccountitsatisfactorilyandtoshow thatheacquiredthoseassetsfromlawfulsources. 28. Asfarasframingofchargeofabatementagainstapersonwho

isnotapublicservantinatrialu/s13(1)(e)ofP .C.Actisconcerned,the Hon'bleApexcourtinthecaseofP .NallammalandAnr,AppellantsV/s StaterepresentedbyInspectorofPolice,Respondentreportedin(1999) 6S.C.559hasobservedinparano.12to15asunder;

SPECIALCASE62of2005

28

PreventionofCorruptionAct,1988Ss.13(1)(e),4,3(1),10and 12OffenceunderS.13(1)(e)notunabettableTrialofnonpublic srevantforabetmentofoffenceunderS.13(1)(e)alongwithpublic servantbySpecialJudgenotbarredPenalCode1860,Ss.107&109. 12. ItistruethatSection11dealswithacaseofabetmentof

offencesdefinedunderSection8andSection9,anditisalsotruethat Section12specificallydealswiththecaseofabetmentofoffencesunder Section7and11.ButthatisnogroundtoholdthatthePCActdoesnot contemplateabetmentofanyoftheoffencesspecifiedinSecton13of thePCAct.LearnedcounselfocussedonSection13(1)(e)toelaborate thatbytheverynatureofthatoffenceitpertainsentirelytothepublic servantconcernedasthereisnoroleforthecoaccusedfordischarging theburdenofproof. 13 Section13(1)(e)readsthus: 13(1)Apublicservantissaidtocommittheoffenceofcriminal misconduct (a) (b) (c) (d)

SPECIALCASE62of2005 (e)

29

Ifheoranypersononhisbehalf,isinpossessionorhas,at

anytimeduringtheperiodofhisoffice,beeninpossessionforwhichthe publicservantcannotsatisfactorilyaccount,ofpecuniaryresourcesor propertydisproportionatetohisknownsourcesofincome. Explanation For the purposes of this section, known sources of income means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law,rulesorordersforthetimebeingapplicabletoapublicservant. 14 It may be remembered that this court has held in M. Krishna

ReddyV.StateDy.Supdt.ofPolicethus:(SCCp.47,para6) 6. An analysis of Section 5 (!) (e) of the Act, 1947 which

correspondstoSection13(1)(e)ofthenewActof1988showsthatitis notthemereacquisitionofpropertythatconstitutesanoffenceunder theprovisionsoftheActbutitisthefailureofsatisfactorilyaccountfor suchpossessionthatmakesthepossessionobjectionableasoffendingthe law. 15. Thus,thetwopostulatesmustcombinetogetherforcrystallization

into the offence, namely, possession of property or resources disproportionatetotheknownsourcesofincomeofpublicservantand the inability of the publicservanttoaccountforit.Burdenofproof

SPECIALCASE62of2005

30

regardingthefirstlimbisontheprosecutionwhereastheonusisonthe publicservanttoprovethesecondlimb.Soitiscontendedthatanon publicservanthasnoroleinthetrialofthesaidoffenceandhencehe cannotconceivablybetaggedwiththepublicservantfortheoffence underSection13(1)(e)ofthePCAct. 29. Aftergoingthroughthejudgmentitcanbesaidthataperson

whopossessessomeassetsonbehalfofpublicservantwhicharefoundto bedisproportionate,canbechargedfortheoffenceofabatementunder sec.109ofIPC. 30. Prior to appreciating evidence available on record it is also

necessary to take in to account certain admitted facts to both the sides whichareasunder; 31. During the trial accused no. 1 has not disputed that from

01.09.1982to31.03.1995hewasworkingasaofficerofIPScadreinthe stateofMaharashtra.Therefore,itcanbesafelyheldthatduringthecheck periodaccusedno.1wasworkingasapublicservantwithinameaningof sec.2(c)ofPreventionofCorruptionAct1988. 32. Accusedno.1hasnotdisputedthatfrom1974to1981hewas

workingasaassociateprofessorinadegreecollegesituatedatMawana (U.P .)andthereafterfrom1981to1982heworkedasaDistrictPanchayat

SPECIALCASE62of2005

31

RajofficerinthestateofUtterPradesh.Itisalsonotindisputethatonthe nextdayofregistrationofcrimehouseofaccusedno.1wassearchedby investigating officer Wable and articles were found and the inventory preparedatthattime.Itisalsonotindisputethatduringthecheckperiod accusedno.2fromOctober1991toJanuary1992investedamountofRs.5 lacsinDeccanQueenRestaurant,Juhu,Mumbaiasapartnerofthesaid firm.Itisalsonotindisputethatduringthecheckperiodaccusedno.2 receiveddepositfromOTISElevatorsforsublettingherrentedpremises.It isalsonotindisputethataccusedno.1constructedonehouseinCIDCO areaofAurangabad.Besidesthesemajoritemsoftheassetsandincome acquiredbyaccusedno.1&2theyhaveadmittedmaximumpartofthe income,expenditureandassetsshownbytheprosecution. 33. After completion of open enquiry, crime was registered on

06.11.2000onthebasisofcomplaintfiledbyACPSawant.InF.I.R.Itwas allegedthatduringperiodfrom01.08.1974to31.03.1995accusedno.1 andhisfamilymembershaveacquiredassetsofRs.31,48,017/whichare disproportionatetoknownsourcesofincome.InF.I.R.theentiredetailsin respectofincome,expenditureandassetsofaccusedno.1&2,theirtwo minorsons,A.K.Jain(HUF)and S.K.Jainfamilytrustweregiven.After filingofthisF.I.R.,detailinvestigationwascarriedoutbyACPWableandin

SPECIALCASE62of2005

32

finalreportitisallegedthataccusedno.1andhisfamilymembersare found in possession of assets worth Rs. 46,76,933.45 ps. which are disproportionate to their known sources of income. After completion of investigationitwasfoundtoACPWablethatcostofsomeassetsismoreas shown in F.I.R., soalso somefigures of expenditures were notcorrectly arrivedatbythecomplainant.Itwasalsofoundthatsomeoftheincome waswronglyacceptedbythecomplainant.Itwouldbeconvenienttospell outachartinrespectofincome,expenditureandassetsofaccusedno.1 andhisfamilymembersandtheirtwofirmsfoundatthetimeofFIRandat thetimeoffilingofchargesheet. COMPARATIVESTATEMENTOFINCOME,EXPENDITUREANDASSETS DISCLOSEDDURINGTHECOURSEOFINVESTIGATION ASCOMPAREDTOF.I.R. Sr. Head No. AsF.I.R. Proved Remarks

ASSETSSHRIAJAYKUMARJAIN 01 02 HouseatJehangirabad BungalowatN5, CIDCO,Aurangabad 01,80,000=00 1,80,000=00 06,93,826=00 8,05,510=00 Costofthe plotaddedto thetotal value.

03

Plot,K.P .C.L.E.Hsg.Societ 01,59,200=00 1,59,200=00 y, Bangalore

SPECIALCASE62of2005 04 05 06 07 OrsonmakeB&WTV VideoconWashing Machine Sanyomusicsystem OnidaColourTV

33 2,100=00 2,100=00 6,000=00 6,000=00 20,000=00 20,000=00 19,550=00 16,460=00 Amount actuallyspent takeninto consideration.

08 09 10 11 12 13

VacuumCleaner Videoconaircooler NationalSavings Certificates Fixeddepositinbank Bankbalancein B.M.C.Bank,Colaba Branch BankBalanceinState BankofIndia,Wode HouseRoadBranch

3,990=00 3,990=00 2,660=00 2,660=00 1,10,000=00 1,10,000=00 25,000=00 25,000=00 22,882=00 22,882=43

NickyTashaKitchenette 2,323=00 2,323=00

14

11,022=00 11,022=00

15

Bankbalancein 53,053=00 53,053=90 B.M.C.BankAurangabad Branch BankbalanceinVyasya 29,698=00 29,698=00 Bank,NandedBranch Godrejrefrigerator 10,800=00 Wrongly shownas assetofMrs Jain. Not consideredin F.I.R. Not consideredin F.I.R.

16 17

18

ClothesofShriJain foundduringhouse search Booksfoundduring housesearch

32,200=00

19

1,571=00

SPECIALCASE62of2005 20 21 Furnitureinthehouse Audiocassettesfoundin thehouse Presidentmakesuitcase

34 15,000=00 2,426=00 Disclosed fromITRS Disclosed duringhouse search Disclosed duringhouse search Disclosed fromITRS Disclosed fromITRSof AY199192 Disclosed fromITRsof Not consideredby the complainant

22

3,000=00

23 24

Cashinhandason 31.03.1995 MusicSystem

16,376=70 10,000=00

25 26

PortableTypewriter MarutiVanMH011136

1,200=00 40,000=00

Total

13,41,304=00 15,82,473=03

ASSETSMRSANITAJAIN 01 Godrejrefrigerator 9,600=00 5,150=00 Provedfigure now considered 10,800=00 10,800=00 1,14,750=00 2,10,100=00 Recalculated fromITRs

02 03 04

VCR,NationalMake InvestmentinShares

BalanceinB.M.C.Bank, 1,18,845=00 70,843=28 Wrongly BycullaBrancha/c acceptedby 13183 the complainant OnidacolourTV 15,800=00 15,800=00

05

SPECIALCASE62of2005 06 07 08 InvestmentinDeccan QueenRestaurant

35 5,00,000=00 5,00,000=00

InvestmentinAssociate 20,000=00 20,000=00 BusinessTechnology GoldandSilver ornamentsfoundinthe house NickyTashaTV ClothesofMrs.Jain 1,33,059=00 Disclosed duringhouse search 9,600=00 Disclosed fromITRs 4,200=00 Disclosed duringhouse search 48,002=00 Disclosed fromITRs 10,000=00 Disclosed fromITRs 19,550=00 Disclosed fromITRs 7,89,795=00 10,57,104=28

09 10

11 12 13

Cashinhandason 31.03.95 TwoAirconditioners SonymakeMusicSystem Total

ASSETSOFMASTERRAHULJAIN 01 Balanceina/c.No. 13184inB.M.C.Bank, BycullaBranch 22,78400 40,493=20 Wrongly acceptedby the complainant

02

PlotNo.78,Aurangabad 01,07,843=00 96,000=00 Amountspent for registration etc.treatedas expenditure Flatno.402,LotusCo op.HousingSociety, ShimpoliRd,Boriwali (W) 7,35,110=00 7,35,110=00

03

SPECIALCASE62of2005 04 05 PlotatAbitghar, Tal:Wada,Dist.Thane

36 2,00,000=00 2,00,000=00

FlatNo.17,Anand 3,00,000=00 3,00,000=00 MangalBuilding,Nerul, NewMumbai Sharesinthenameof RahulJain Total 25,000=00 Disclosed fromITRs 13,65,737=00 13,96,603=20

06

ASSETSOFMASTERVIPULJAIN 01 Plotno.79,Aurangabad 1,07,843=00 96,000=00 Amountpaid for registration etc. consideredas expenditure Investmentinshares 37,300=00 26,000=00 Disclosed fromProperty Returns 2,42,079=00 2,32,634=00 Actual balancetaken into consideration 3,87,222=00 3,54,634=20

02

03

Balanceina/c.No. 13183inB.M.C.Bank, BycullaBranch Total

ASSETSOFSARALKANTAJAINFAMILYTRUST 01 02 OpenplotatErangal, Mumbai InvestmentinShri SahayogExhibitors, Aurangabad 25,000=00 25,000=00

4,65,397=00 2,40,000=00 Incomeby wayof interest wrongly treatedas

SPECIALCASE62of2005

37 asset.

03 04

InvestmentinShares

20,0000=00 20,0000=00

Balanceina/c.no.13394 1,27,215=00 28,719=10 Actual inBMCBank,Byculla balancetaken branch into consideration PlotatWaladgaon, Aurangabad 68,500=00 N.A.had suppressed this information during enquiry 1,06,996=10 Disclosed fromITRs 6,37,612=00 4,89,215=10

05

06

Cashinhand Total

ASSETSOFSHRIAJAYKUMARJAIN(HUF) 01 Balanceina/c.no. 13185inBMCBank, BycullaBranch Total 15,286=00 7,519=35 Wrongly acceptedby the complainant.

15,286=00

7,519=35

INCOMEOFSHRIAJAYKUMARJAIN 01 02 SalaryfromAugust74to 01,31,916=00 6,38,840=80 Actualsalary June81 asperdetails receivedfrom Salaryfrom 05,63,650=00 theconcerned September82to March95 03 ProfitfromsaleMavana 34,000=00 9,700=00 Amount plot actually shownin

SPECIALCASE62of2005

38 ITRsonly takeninto consideration.

04 05

Salaryas D.P .R.O.Muzaffarnagar InterestonN.S.Cs.

13,829=00 46,175=00 86,175=00 Actually calculated andthen considered. 17,307=00 17,307=00

06 07 08

SurrenderofLICpolicy

DepositforBungalowat 50,000=00 50,000=00 CIDCOAurangabad Interestonbank accounts Saleofgold 28,149=00 20,294=87 Actualfigures receivedfrom banks. 45,140=00 45,140=00 Thisincome isnot permissible bylaw. Thisincome notdeclared toIncomeTax andhence rejected.

09 10

IncomefromBeautyArt, 17,000=00 Nil PrintingPress,Mavana

11

IncomefromHouserent 95,200=00 Nil anddepositat Jehangirbad

12

Saleofoldrefrigerator Total:

7,000=00 Disclosed fromITRs.

10,42,366=00 08,74,457=67

INCOMEOFMRSANITAJAIN 01 DividendonShares 30,830=00 24,302=00 Actual amount disclosedin ITRs.only

SPECIALCASE62of2005

39 considered.

02 03 04 05

Survivalbenefiton L.I.C.Policy

35,000=00 35,000=00

SaleofSilverOrnaments 10,915=00 10,915=00 SaleofGoldOrnaments 40,021=00 40,021=00 Incomefromsaleof Saries,tuitionsand CoachingClasses 03,67,750=00 Nil Rejectedas Mrs.Jain couldnot produceany evidencein support. Rejectedas notdisclosed inITRs.

06

Profitfromsaleofshares 01,16,600=00 Nil ofVideoconandUsha Rectifiers Profitfromsaleof 45,380=00 45,380=00 Kiradpura,Aurangabad plot.

07

08

InterestofBankSavings 4,686=00 4,695=67 Actual figures. Total: 06,51,182=00 01,60,313=67

INCOMEOFMASTERRAHULJAIN 01 Profitonsurrenderingof 01,000,00=00 Nil flatno.102,atNerul Thisincome falsely claimedby N.A.

02

Profitonsaleof Kiradpuraplotat Aurangabad Profitonsurrendering flatno.D1,Mangalam Apartments,Thakur Complex,Kandivali.

45,380=00 45,380=00

03

24,500=00

24,500=00

04

InterestonBankSavings 13,554=00 13,554=00

SPECIALCASE62of2005 Total:

40 01,83,434=00 83,434=30

INCOMEOFMASTERVIPULJAIN 01 Profitonsurrenderingof 30,000=00 flatnoD2inMangalam Apts.ThakurComplex. 30,000=00

02

Profitfromsaleofflat 59,851=00 59,851=00 no.401inLotusCo op.Hsg.Society,Borivali (W) Profitfromsurrendering 1,00,000=00 Nil flatno.103inNerul. Falsely claimed incomeby N.A.

03

04

Profitfromsaleof Kiradpuraplotat Aurangabad Total:

45,380=00

45,380=00

5 Interestonbanksavings 11,863=00 11,863.50 02,47,094=00 01,47,094=50

Actualfigure.

INCOMEOFSHRIAJAYKUMARJAIN(HUF) 01 Profitfromsaleof Kiradpuraplotat Aurangabad 45,380=00 45,380=00

02

InterestonbankSavings 09,240=00 Total: 54,620=00

08,735=85 Actualfigure considered. 54,115=85

SPECIALCASE62of2005

41

INCOMEOFSARALKANTAJAINFAMILYTRUST 01 02 InterestonbankSavings 18,844=00 18,844=10 Interestreceivedfrom 01,55,959=00 Nil SahayogExhibitorsPvt. No. Total: EXPENDITUREOFSHRIAJAYKUMARJAIN 01 33%ofgrossSalary 2,71,156=00 2,61,353=33 dueto decreasein actualgross salary. 01,74,803=00 18,844=10 Incomenot permissible andhence rejected.

02 03 04

premiumpaidforLIC policies. IncomeTaxpaid Expenditureforclubs

1,97,124=00 13,420=00 66,454=00

1,97,124=00 7,390=00 68,233=00 actualfigures considered. actualfigures takeninto consideration.

05 06 07 08 09

VisittoSingaporeand Mauritius Houserentpaidin Mavana MaintenanceofCar Rentanddepositfor HouseatJehangirbad

17,453=00

17,453=00

5000=00 5000=00

MaintenanceofScooter 3000=00 3000=00 2900=00 16800=00 95,200=00 Provedfrom statements Thiswas acceptedas Incomeand Expenditure toointhe F.I.R.

SPECIALCASE62of2005 10

42 Thiswas acceptedas Incomeand Expenditure toointhe F.I.R. Wrongly shown againstthe namesofthe minor children Not considered during enquiry. Not consideredby the complainant. Not consideredby the complainant.

IncomefrombeautyArts 17,000=00 Printer,Mawana

11

Expenditurefor educationofChildren

25,687=00

12

ExpenditureforL.P .G.

3,627=00

13

TransferfeeofR.T.O. Mumbai

1,005=00

14

MunicipalTax Aurangabad

916=75

15

Stampdutyand registrationfeefor Erangal,Mumbaiplot. AmountpaidtoCIDCO, Aurangabadasfineand otherfees. ChiefMinisterRelief Funds Transferchargespaidfor MavanaPlot

2,810=00 Not consideredby the complainant. 42,755=00 Not consideredby the complainant. 516=00 Disclosed fromITRs. 3,310=00 Disclosed during

16

17 18

SPECIALCASE62of2005

43 investigation.

19

Amountspentbyusing DinersCards Commissionpaidto Banks Total:

15,802=00 Disclosed during investigation 953=50 06,88,707=00 06,78,420=58

20

EXPENDITUREOFMRSANITAJAIN 01 02 03 04 10%ofgrossincome LICPremium IncomeTaxPaid RentforKopargaon EstateShed OpenLandTaxpaidfor Kiradpuraplotat Aurangabad Amountwithdrawnfor personalExpenditure Total: 36,775=00 87,601=00 3,466=00 87,601=00 5,977=00 Verifiedfigure 7,548=00 Not consideredby thecomplaint 916=75 Disclosed during investigation. Not applicable

05

06

84,635=00 Disclosed fromITRs.

01,27,842=00 01,97,962=75

EXPENDITUREOFMASTERRAHULJAIN 01 02 IncomeTaxpaid Expenditurefor education 605=00 605=00 Verifiedfrom ITRs 4,800=00 Nil This expenditure hasbeen attributedto ShriJain

SPECIALCASE62of2005 03 04 LICPremium Rentpaidforshedin KopargaonEstate

44 21,748=00 21,748=00 6,864=00 Not consideredby the complainant 916=75 Disclosed during investigation 26,060=00 Disclosed during investigation 10,563=00 Disclosed during investigation 10,000=00 Disclosed fromITR's 255=00 Disclosed during investigation 27,153=00 77,011=75

05

Openlandtaxpaidfor Kiradpuraplot, Aurangabad Stampdutyand registrationfeepaidfor flatNo.402,AnsalVihar, Boriwali Stampdutyand registrationfeepaidfor plotNo.78.Aurangabad Advancepaidforflatat VileParle Commissionpaidto banks Total:

06

07

08 09

EXPENDITUREOFMASTERVIPULJAIN 01 02 Incometaxpaid Expenditurefor education 477=00 477=00 9600=00 Nil Consideredin the expenditure ofShriJain Not consideredby complainant Disclosed during

03 04

LICpremium Commissionpaidto Banks Openlandtaxfor Kiradpura,Aurangabad

9,793=00 9,793=00 384=00

05

916=75

SPECIALCASE62of2005 plot 06 07 AdvancedpaidforVile Parleflat StampDutyand Registrationfeeforplot No.79 Total:

45 investigation 10,000=00 10,563=00 Disclosed fromITRs. Disclosed during investigation

19,870=00

32,133=75

EXPENDITUREOFSHRIAJAYKUMARJAIN(HUF) 01 02 Incometaxpaid 1,619=00 1,619=00 7,548=00 Not consideredby the complainant

RentpaidforKopargaon EstateShed

Total:

1,619=00 9,167=00

EXPENDITUREOFSARALKANTAJAINFAMILYTRUST 01 02 Incometaxpaid Commissionpaidto Banks RentpaidforKopargaon EstateShed 99,369=00 65,562=00 650=00 Disclosed during investigation Not consideredby the complainant. Disclosed during investigation Disclosed during investigation Clubbedwith

03

5,148=00

04

Taxdeductedatsource fromtheaccountof SahayogExhibitors Registrationfeepaidfor WaladgaonPlot RentpaidtoR.C.C.Trust

17,744=00

05

2,740=00

06

44,316=00

SPECIALCASE62of2005 forRehemMansion Property. Total:

46 rejected incomebythe complainant. 99,369=00 1,36,160=00

REJECTEDINCOME 01 IncomefromOtis 19,01,570=00 18,44,500=00 Figureshave ElevatorforR.C.C.Trust changed property. because complainant also considered therentpaid inthe rejected income. Incomeforrelinquishing 10,00,000=00 10,00,000=00 tenancyrightin KopargaonEstate. ProfitonsaleofScooter Saleofgoldornaments Gifts Profitfromsaleof Kiradpuraplotat Aurangabad. Tuitionfeesreceivedby ShriJain 10,000=00 10,000=00 40,000=00 40,000=00 70,000=00 70,000=00 1,38,480=00 1,38,480=00

02

03 04 05 06

07

42,000=00 Not consideredby the complainant. 7,000=00 Not consideredby the complainant. 17,000=00 Not

08

Amountreceivedas Examinershipfeesby ShriJain IncomefromBeautyArts

09

SPECIALCASE62of2005 Printingpress.

47 consideredby the complainant. 95,200=00 Not consideredby the complainant. 96,000=00 96,000=00 7,450=00 Notdisclosed inITRs. 1,16,600=00 Thisincome wasgivenby the complainant. 2,00,000=00 Thisincome wasgivenby the complainant. 50,000=00 1,00,000=00 Not consideredby the complainant. 88,984=00

10

RentfromHouseat Jahangirbad.

11 12 13

IncomefromDeccan QueenRestaurant SaleofOldT.V . ProfitfromsaleofUsha RectifiersandVideocon shares. Profitonthesurrender offlatNerul.

14

15 16

DepositforflatatAnsal 50,000=00 Vihar. Incomebywayof interestfrom K.E.Enterprises. Incomebywayof interestfromSayahog Exhibitors. SaleofSarisandtuition andcoachingclassesby Mrs.Jain RentfromGayatri EngineeringCompany forBangloreat Aurangabad. Total: 15,789=00

17

18

3,67,750=00 Consideredas incomebythe complainant. Outsidecheck period.

19

33,21,839=00 42,90,964=00

SPECIALCASE62of2005 34.

48

Itisthecaseofprosecutionthatinfactaccusedno.2whoisthe

wifeofaccusedno.1andtheirtwominorsonshavenoanyindependent sourceofincomeduringthecheckperiodanditwasaccusedno.1whoin aclevermannerinvestedhisillgottenwealthinthenameofhisfamily members in order to show that they have got independent sources of income.Tothecontraryitisthecaseofaccusedno.1thataccusedno.2, his two minor sons, A.K.Jain (HUF) and S.K. Jain family trust have independentsourcesofincomeduringthecheckperiodandheisnoway relatedwiththeassetsacquiredbythemandinfactthosewereacquiredby themoutoftheirownincome.Therefore,nowfirstofallitisnecessaryto decideastowhetherornotaccusedno.2,hertwominorsons,A.K.Jain (HUF)andS.K.Jainfamilytrustwerehavingtheirindependentsourcesof income. 35. Itisnotindisputethattwosonsofaccusedno.1&2Vipuland

Rahulweretheminorsduringthecheckperiodi.e.between01.09.1982to 31.03.1995.Itisalsonotindisputethatduringthisperiodbothofthem were taking education. Material available on record shows that both of themhavetakeneducationattheplaceswhereaccusedno.1wasposted. Itisnotthecaseofaccusedno.1&2thattheirtwosonsweredoingany businessindependentlyduringthisperiodoranyoneontheirbehalfwas

SPECIALCASE62of2005 conductinganybusiness. 36.

49

Prosecution has produced on record copies of I.T. Returns of

Rahul Jain submitted for the financial year 199091 and balancesheets submittedbyhimon31.03.1990,31.03.1991,31.03.1994&31.03.1995 with income tax department. Prosecution has also produced copies of incometaxreturnsubmittedbyanothersonofaccusednamelyVipulJain forthefinancialyear199091andthecopiesofbalancesheetssubmittedby him on 31.03.1990, 31.03.1991 and 31.03.1994 with income tax department.ThesedocumentsarethepartofExh.107.Noneoftheaccused hasdisputedgenuinenessofthesedocuments.Accordingtoinvestigating officer,thesedocumentswereprovidedtohimbyincometaxdepartment. On all these documents there is attestation of the concern income tax officer.PerusalofacknowledgmentsheetofbothRahulandVipulshows thatintheyear199192theyhavefiledreturnsforthefirsttimeasitis mentionedinfirstcolumnwhichisinrespectofPANNo.thattheseare new cases. Therefore, admittedly prior to 199192 these two sons of accusedhavenotfiledanyreturnswithincometaxdepartment.Perusalof theirbalancesheetsalsodoesnotshowthattheyweregainingprofitfrom anybusiness. 37. FromSaleDeedExh.15itappearsthataplotoflandsituated

SPECIALCASE62of2005

50

atJaswantpura,(Kiradpura),Aurangabadwaspurchasedon02.07.1987by boththeaccusedandtheirminorsonsforaconsiderationofRs.40,000/. ThesaledeedalsoshowsthatatthetimeofitsexecutionRahulJainand VipulJainwereminorsons.Insaledeeditwasdemonstratedthatthisplot hasbeenpurchasedbyA.K.Jain(HUF).Itispertinenttonotethatduring trialboththeaccusedarenotshownastowhatwerethesourcesofincome ofA.K.Jain(HUF)andwhyitwasformed.Thereisnomaterialavailable onrecordtoshowthatA.K.Jain(HUF)washavinganyindependentsource ofincomeinordertoinvesttheamountandthereforeitappearsthatitwas accused no. 1 who was investing his income in the name of A.K. Jain (HUF) and it also appears that A.K. Jain (HUF) was shown to be in existenceonlyforthepurposeofavailingtaxbenefitsasitisamatterof common knowledge that the concept of Hindu Undivided Family is altogether different as far as the provisions of Income Tax Act, are concerned. 38. SaleDeedsExh.16&17showthatintheyear1990thisA.K.

Jain(HUF)soldthisplotforaconsiderationofRs.4lacs.Sothiscouldbe thefirstincomederivedbytwosonsofaccused.FromITreturnsitappears thatincomederivedfromthistransactionwasequallydistributedamong boththeaccusedandtheirtwominorsons.Itistheclaimofaccusedno.1

SPECIALCASE62of2005

51

thateachoneofthemincurredexpensesforthedevelopmentofthisplot forRs.54,620/andtheyhaveearnednetincomeofRs45,380/eachfrom thissaleproceed.SothisappearstobethefirstincomeearnedbyRahul JainandVipulJain.Balancesheetfiledbythemdoesnotshowthatthere wasanyindependentsourceofincometothem.SaleDeedsExh.13&14 showsthatbothVipulandRahulhavepurchasedoneploteachwithinthe municipallimitsofAurangabadon09.10.1990bypayingconsiderationof Rs.96,000/each.TheirbalancesheetswhicharepartofExhibit107show that from the profit earned through sell of plot at Aurangabad and by raisingsomeloantheyhavepurchasedthisplot.Sofromthisitappears thatintheyear1987whenaplotwaspurchasedinthenameofA.KJain (HUF),entireamountofconsiderationwaspaidbyaccusedno.1andafter the sale of that plot, amount earned was distributed equally to all the familymembersandbythiswayitisshownthatVipulandRahulhave started earning money but in fact it was accused no. 1 who initially investedamountintheirnames.Asperthesecalculations,itappearsthat in the year 1990 when Rahul and Vipul purchased one plot each at AurangabadforaconsiderationofRs.96,000/each,accusedno.1atthat timeinvestedamountofRs.40,000/eachinthenameofRahulandVipul. Therefore,itcanbesaidthattilltheyear1990accusedno.1investedtotal

SPECIALCASE62of2005

52

amountofRs.1,20,000/forthepurchaseofplotsatAurangabad. 39. The charts referred to above show that thereafter several

propertieswereacquiredinthenameofRahul&Vipulbutitcannotbe saidthattheseinvestmentsweremadebythemfromtheincomederived from any independent source and these are to be termed as the investmentsmadebyaccusedno.1.Havingregardtothisdiscussionthis courtisoftheopinionthattwominorsonsofaccusednamelyRahuland Vipul did not have any independent source of income during the check period.Accusedno.1atthetimeofhisstatementundersection313of Cr.P .C.filedcopyofhisoneoftheexplanationgiventoinvestigatingofficer on14.08.2000alongwithlistExh.367.Thisexplanationalsoshowsthat accused no. 1 admitted that Rahul and Vipul have no any independent sourceofincomeandtheyareearningamountasainterestondeposits keptinthebankandprofitfromthetransactionofimmovableproperties.It hasalsobeenstatedinthesaidstatementthatRahulandVipulhavefiled their IT returns for the first time in the year 1991. Similarly, in this explanationaccusedno.1hasnotclaimedthatthereisanyindependent sourceofincomeavailabletoA.K.Jain(HUF).Therefore,ithasbeenduly proved that the transactions entered into by Rahul, Vipul and A.K.Jain (HUF)wereinfactofaccusedno.1.

SPECIALCASE62of2005 40.

53

Prosecutionhasalsocamewiththecasethatintheyear1991

Rahul and Vipul have booked one flat each bearing nos. D1 & D2 in MangalamApartment,Mumbaiwhichwastheprojectofpotentialbuilders andpaidamountofRs.3,63,000/andRs.3,45,000/respectivelytillthe year 1993. Thereafter, in the month of September 1993 prior to taking possessionoftheseflats,theyhavesolditthroughpotentialbuildersand gotreturnedamountpaidbythemasreferredtoabovevideExh.63and 63A. Thereis nomaterialon record to showthattheseamounts were earnedbythemfromanytransactionenteredintopriortothistransaction. Itisnotthecaseofaccusedno.1thatplotspurchasedintheyear1990 weresoldoutbyRahulandVipulpriortobookingoftheseflats.Therefore, itisnecessarytoheldthatamountofRs.7,08,000/waspaidbyaccused no. 1 for booking of these two flats. Accused no. 1 & 2 have admitted documentsExh.63&63Awhichrelatestothesetransactions. 41. Prosecution has also filed on record copies of agreement

markedasExh.47&49whichareadmittedbytheaccused.Contentsof theseagreementsshowthatRahulandVipulhavebookedflatno.102& 103 respectively with Anmol Developer, Mumbai and they have paid amountofRs.2lacseachforbookingoftheseflatson25.11.1993and 28.01.1994.However,subsequentlyinthemonthofNovember1994they

SPECIALCASE62of2005

54

havecancelledthesebookingsandgotreturnedamountofRs.2lacseach. However,thisamountcouldhavebeeninvestedbyaccusedno.1fromthe amount received from potential builders. Therefore, these transactions havenobearingonthematter. 42. Prosecution has also produced copy of agreement Exh. 60

whichisadmittedbytheaccused.Contentsofthisagreementshowsthat oneflatwassoldbyRahulJaintooneMehtainthemonthofJuly1995 whichisadmittedlyatransactionenteredintoafterthecheckperiodi.e 31.03.1995.However,itscontentsshowsthatthisflatwaspurchasedby RahulJainandtheconsiderationamountofRs.6,41,250/waspaidby accused no. 1 on 06.02.1995 i.e. during check period. However, this payment could have been made from the amount of Rs. 7,08,000/ received from potential builders. Therefore, this transaction is material whilecalculatingtheincome,expenditureandassetsofaccusedno.1&2. 43. ProsecutionhasalsoreliedonExh.100whichisadmittedby

theaccused.This isaagreementforsaleenteredinbetweenVGPAgro LimitedandRahulandVipulJain.AsperthisagreementRahulandVipul JainhavepurchasedonpieceoflandatAbidgharvillage,TalukaWada, Dist.Thaneon01.03.1995foraconsiderationofRs.2lacs.Asaguardian ofRahulandVipulaccusedno.1musthavepaidthisamount.Noneofthe

SPECIALCASE62of2005

55

accusedhastakentheresponsibilityforthispayment.Atthetimeofthis transaction only amount of Rs.66,750/ was with accused no. 1 out of amount of Rs. 7,08,000/ received from potential builders and after purchaseofflatatAnsalViharon06.02.1995.Therefore,itappearsthatat the time of this transaction accused no. 1 invested amount of Rs. 1,33,250/inthenameofRahulandVipul.Sothesumandsubstanceis thatfromtheyear1987tilltheyear1995accusedno.1investedamountof Rs.9,61,250/inthenameofhistwominorssonsnamelyRahulJainand VipulJainforpurchaseofvariousproperties. 44. Apart from this investigating officer has also collected

documentsfromtherespectivebanksinordertoshowthatRahulandVipul haveearnedinterestondepositsofRs.13,554.30ps.andRs.11,863.50ps respectively. This fact has not been disputed by both the accused. Therefore, this amount is required to be excluded from the amount of investment made by accused no. 1 in the name of his two minor sons. Therefore,afterdeductingthisamount,itcanbesaidthataccusedno.1 acquiredassetsofRs.9,35,832.20psinthenameofhistwominorsons. 45. It is the case of prosecution that on 31.03.1995 there was

balanceofRs.40,493.20ps.andRs.2,32,634.20ps.lyingintheaccounts of Rahul and Vipul Jain respectively in Bombay Mercantile Cooperative

SPECIALCASE62of2005

56

Bank,branchByculla,Mumbaiandthisfacthasbeenadmittedbyboththe accused.ItisnotthecaseofanyoftheaccusedthatRahulandVipulhave earnedthisamountfromanyindependentsource.Similarly,prosecution hasalsoclaimedthataccusedno.1purchasedsharesofRs.25,000/and of Rs. 26,000/ in the name of Rahul and Vipul Jain respectively and informedthisfactinhispropertyreturnsubmittedfortheyear1993.This hasalsonotbeendisputedbyaccusedno.1.Therefore,itisnecessaryto heldthattheseamountswereinvestedbyaccusedno.1anditstotalcomes toRs.3,24,127.40ps.Therefore,intotalityaccusedno.1investedamount ofRs.12,59,959.60ps.inthenameofhistwominorsons. 46. Now it is also necessary to take into account expenditure

incurred by Rahul and Vipul Jain. When it is an admitted position to accused no. 1 & 2 that Rahul and Vipul did not have any independent sourceofincomeandasthiscourthasalreadydeductedtheincomeearned fromthereinvestmentintheproperty,theexpenditureincurredbyRahul andVipulistobeconsideredastheexpendituremadebyaccusedno.1 anditistobeincludedintheamountwhichwasinvestedbyaccusedno.1 inthenameofRahulandVipul. 47. During investigation it was found that accused no. 1 spent

followingamountforRahulandVipulJain.

SPECIALCASE62of2005 RahulJain 1.

57

Incometaxpaidforthefinancialyear 199192 Rs. 605/

2. 3.

PremiumfortwoLICpolicies StampDutyandRegistrationfee forregistrationofflatno.402,Ansal Vihar,Mumbai

Rs.21,748/

Rs.26,060/

4.

Stampdutyandregistrationfee fortheplotpurchasedatAurangabad intheyear1990 Rs.10,563/

Total Rs.58,976/ VipulJain 1. Incometaxpaidforthefinancialyear 199192 2. 3. PremiumforLICpolicy CommissionpaidtoBombay MercantileCoOp.Bank,Mumbai 4. Stampdutyandregistrationfee fortheplotpurchasedatAurangabad Rs.384/ Rs.477/ Rs.9793/

SPECIALCASE62of2005 intheyear1990

58 Rs.10,563/

Total Rs.21,217/ 48. Thus,totalexpenditureincurredbyaccusedno.1forRahuland

Vipul Jain comes to Rs. 80,193/. If this is included in the amount of investmentofRs.12,59,959.60ps.thenitstotalcomestoRs.13,40,152.60 ps.Sothisisthetotalamountinvestedbyaccusedno.1inthenameofhis twominorsonsandA.K.Jain(HUF).Boththeaccusedhavenotdeniedthis partofexpenditure. 49. Nowitisnecessarytodecideastowhetheraccusedno.2who

isthewifeofaccusedno.1hadanyindependentsourceofincomepriorto and during the check period. It is pertinent to note that during investigation though accused no. 2 was called upon to submit her explanationanddetailsregardingherclaimofincomebutshehasnotfiled anyexplanationinsupportofherclaim.Duringtrialalso,accusedno.2 hasnotproducedanymaterialinsupportofherclaimnorexamineany witness. 50. Initiallyitwas claimedbyaccusedno.2thatshehad earned

income of Rs. 3,67,750/ from the sale of Saree business, tuitions and coachingclasses.However,accusedno.2hasnotfurnishedanydetailsin

SPECIALCASE62of2005

59

respectofthisincome.Thereisabsolutelynodocumentavailableonrecord inordertosupportthisclaimnoranywitnessisexaminedbyaccusedno. 2.Admittedlyforrunningclothbusinessalicenceundertheprovisionsof Shops and Establishment Act has to be obtained from the concern authority.Similarly,returnsaretobesubmittedwithsalestaxauthoritiesin respectofpurchaseandsaleofthegoods.Itisalsonecessarytopreserve thepurchaseandsalevouchersbythebusinessmen.Notonlythat,income tax return also required to be submitted in respect of profit earned. Therefore,therecouldbeavailabilityofvariousdocumentstoshowthat shehadcarriedoutsareebusinessataparticularpointoftime.However, accused no.2 has not produced anything on record. Similarly, while runningprivatecoachingclassesalicenceisrequiredtobeobtainedand recordhastobemaintainedinrespectofnamesofstudentsandpayment receivedbythemastuitionfees.Soalso,returnsaretobesubmittedin respect of profit earned from it with income tax authorities. However, accusedno.1hasalsonotproducedanydocumentinsupportofthisclaim. Moreover, no evidence has been adduced by her that she had not maintainedanysuchrecordorpreservedit. 51. P .W.15investigatingofficerShri.Wablewhiledeposingbefore

thiscourthasstatedthatasaccusedno.2failedtofurnishanydocumentto

SPECIALCASE62of2005

60

prove this income, he has rejected this part of her income. The reason givenbyinvestigatingofficerisappearstobeproperforrejectionofthis partofincome. 52. Itisalsoclaimedbyaccusedno.2thatshehadearnedincome

of Rs. 1,16,600/ from the sale of share of Videocon and Usha limited. CopiesofherITreturnsandbalancesheetproducedbyherfortheperiod from 1990 to 1993 are part of exhibit 107. Perusal of these copies of returnsdoesnotshowthatshehadeversoldsharesanddebenturesduring thisperiod.Soalsoshehasnotfiledanythingonrecordinsupportofthis claim.Obviouslyadocumenthastobepreparedaftersaleofsharesanda receiptistobeissuedbutaccusedno.2hasevennotgivenanydetailsof this transaction. Therefore, investigating officer has rightly rejected this partofincomeclaimedbyaccusedno.2. 53. Prosecution has placed on record copy of one unregistered

partnershipdeedExh.12onrecordwhichhasbeenadmittedbyaccused no.2.Asperthisagreementaccusedno.2wasinductedasapartnerin DeccanQueenRestaurant,Juhu,Mumbaiandhersharewasfixedtothe extentof33%.Asperthesaidagreementaccusedno.2agreedtoinvest amountofRs.5lacsashersharefromOctober1991to25.01.1992.Itis thecaseofprosecutionthataccusedno.2claimedthatshehadinvested

SPECIALCASE62of2005

61

thisamountinthesaidRestaurantasapartnerofitandaccusedno.2has also not disputed this fact. Perusal of balance sheet filed along with IT returns show that only amount of Rs. 1 lac was invested by her in the financial year 19911992. It is not her case that she had not shown remaining investment of Rs. 4 lacs in her returns. Nothing has been explained by accused no.2 as to from where she invested remaining amountofRs.4lacsinthesaidRestaurant.Therefore,itappearsthatthe remainingamountofRs.4lacswasinvestedbyaccusedno.1inthename ofaccusedno.2andaattemptwasmadetoconverthisillgottenwealthas a wealth of accused no. 2. Accused no. 2 claimed that she earned Rs. 96,000/ashershareofprofitfromDeccanQueenRestaurantwhichhas beenrejectedbytheinvestigatingofficeronthegroundthatstructureof Deccan Queen Restaurant is a illegal structure and therefore income derived from the saidRestaurant can not saidtobe the income earned fromlawfulsources.However,thereasongivenbytheinvestigatingofficer appears to be improper for several reasons. In the first place the term lawfulsourcesofincomeusedinsection13(1)(e)relateswiththeincome earnedbyapublicservantandnotbyanonpublicservant.Moreover,even ifthestructureofthesaidRestaurantissaidtobeaillegalstructure,itdoes notreasontomindthatprofitearnedfromthesaleoffooditemsfromthat

SPECIALCASE62of2005

62

placeamountstoanillegality.AtthemostMunicipalCorporationcantake actionforitbywayofrecoveryoffineamountorbyadoptingsomeother measures.Therefore,thispartofincomeofaccusedno.2isrequiredtobe accepted.Therefore,sumandsubstanceofthediscussionwouldbethat accusedno.1investedamountofRs.4lacsinthenameofaccusedno.2in the said Restaurant and she earned profit of Rs. 96,000/ towards her share. 54. Ihavealreadypointedoutthatintheyear1987andasperExh.

15accusedno.1whilepurchasingaplotatAurangabadforRs.40,000/ investedamountofRs.10,000/inthenameofaccusedno.2.Itisalso claimedbyaccusedno.2thatsheincurredexpensesofRs.54,620/forthe developmentofthesaidplotalongwithaccusedno.1andhertwominor sonswhohavealsospentthismuchamount.Asperexhibit16&17this plotwassoldintheyear1990andforRs.4lacsandthesaidamountwas equallydistributedamongstboththeaccusedandtheirtwosons.Soafter deductingexpensesitcanbesaidthataccusedno.2earnedaprofitofRs. 45,380/fromthesaidplot. 55. P .W.15investigatingofficerstatedbeforethiscourtthataccused

no. 2 claimed income of Rs. 28,000/ from 07.06.1990 to 04.06.1994 towardsgiftsfromaccusedno.1andhisfamilymembers.However,shehas

SPECIALCASE62of2005

63

failedtogivedetailsofthesegifts.Moreover,asperallIndiaservicesrules thepublicservantandhisfamilymembersarepreventedfromreceiving giftswithoutpriorsanctionoftheGovernment.Itisnotthecaseofeither oftheaccusedthatanysuchpermissionwassoughtorgiven.Therefore,it appears that investigating officer has rightly rejected this part of the incomeclaimedbyaccusedno.2. 56. Accusedno.2alsoclaimedthatsheearnedRs.7450/fromthe

saleofoldtelevisionsetbutshehasfailedtoproduceanydocumenton recordinsupportofthisclaim.Theinvestigatingofficerhadalsorejected thispartofincomeforwantofdocumentaryevidenceorthedetailsofit. Therefore,itisdifficulttoacceptthispartofincomeclaimedbyaccused no.2. 57. Accusedno.1informedthataccusedno.2hadearnedincome

ofRs.40,000/fromthesaleofhergoldornaments.However,duringtrial accusedno.1or2hadnotproducedanymaterialordetailsofthesaid transaction.Moreover,investigatingofficerhadalsorejectedthispartof incomeforwantoffurnishinginformation.Therefore,thispartofincome claimedbyaccusedno.2cannotbeaccepted. 58. During investigation accused no. 2 also claimed that as per

agreementExh.39somepartofDeccanQueenRestaurantwasgivenon

SPECIALCASE62of2005

64

leaveandlicencebasistoM/sAmbienceSpaceSellersandatthattimeshe alongwithherpartnerParvezAliKhanreceiveddepositofRs.5lacsand alsoearnedlicencefeeofRs.45,000/permonthasapartnerofDeccan QueenRestaurant.PerusalofagreementExh.39showsthattheagreement wasexecutedbyParvezAlikhanwithM/sAmbienceSpaceSellersandnot onbehalfofDeccanQueenRestaurant.Accusedno.2hasnotbeenshown as a party to the said agreement. Though in the said premises said Restaurantissituatedbutitcannotbesaidthataccusedno.2wasalsoa partnerinthepremises.Nothinghasbeenexplainedbyaccusedno.2about it. Moreover, this income has also not been shown in the IT returns of accusedno.2.Sotheonlyinferencewhichcanbedrawnisthataccused no.2failedtoprovethispartofincome. 59. ThoughprosecutionhasclaimedthatassetsofRs.1,33,059/in

formofgoldandsilverornamentswerefoundduringthehousesearchof accused no. 1 & 2 and these belongs to accused no.2 but during trial prosecution has given up this claim. Moreover, this can be termed as Stridhanreceivedbyaccusedno.2atthetimeofhermarriage.Apartfrom it,valuationoftheseassetswasdoneonthebasisofratesprevailingatthe time of house search and this fact is admitted by P .W.10 who is a Government approved valuer. Therefore, this part of assets has to be

SPECIALCASE62of2005 excludedfromconsideration. 60.

65

As per the explanation and the written statement filed by

accusedno.1atthetimeofhisstatementundersection313ofCr.P .C.a incomeofRs.5lacseachclaimedtohavebeenearnedbyaccusedno.2 andA.K.Jain(HUF)whilesurrenderingthetenancyrightsinrespectof two sheds situated at Survey no.400 Byculla, Mumbai and known as KopargaonEstate.Itisthecaseofaccusedno.2thatshehadtakenshed no.1GonrentfromtheownerofKopergaonestateandoneanothershed wastakenonrentsituatedinthesamepremisesinthenameofA.K.Jain (HUF).Itisfurthercaseoftheaccusedthatintheyear1993landlordsof thesaidestatenamelyJayantandRajendraKasliwalfiledevictionsuitsin thecourtofSmallCausesagainstaccusedno.2andA.K.Jain(HUF)and subsequentlyconsenttermswerefiledinboththesuitsandasperthose terms landlord paid amount of Rs. 5 lacs each to accused no. 2 and A.K.Jain (HUF). Copies of consent terms filed in several suits are at Exhibits32to38.Perusalofthesecopiesshowthattwoshedsweregiven toaccusedno.2i.e.oneinhernameandotherinthenameofSaralKanta JainFamilyTrustofwhichaccusedno.2istheSoletrustee.Italsoappears thatoneshedeachwasgivenonrenttominorsonofaccusedno.1namely Rahul, Father of accused no.1 namely Gyanchand Jain and some other

SPECIALCASE62of2005

66

tenantswhose surnamesare Jain.However,these copiesdoes notshow that any of the shed was given to A.K.Jain(H.U.F.) on rent. Perusal of consenttermsfiledinallthesesuitsshowthatRs.5,00,000/weregiven for surrendering the tenancy right by Kasliwal Brothers to each tenant. However,copiesofplaintsdoesnotshowmentioningoftherespectiveshed numbersinit.Prosecutionhasalsofiledtruecopiesofplaintandconsent termsofR.A.E.Suitnos.618/93and620/93.Perusalofthesecopiesshow thatoneshedeachwasgivenonrenttoaccusedno.2andA.K.Jain(H.U.F.). However,intheentireproceedings,numbersofrespectiveshedwerenot mentionedwhichwasallottedtoaccusedno.2andintheplaintofR.A.E. suitno.618/93alsonumberofshedhadnotbeenmentionedwhichwas allotted to A.K.Jain(H.U.F.) and in consent terms filed in this suit, it is mentioned that A.K.Jain(H.U.F.) had surrendered rights of shed no.1E. However,perusalofconsenttermsofRAEsuitno.619/93,whichisatExh. 38showthatshedno.1EwasallottedtooneRajkumarJainandnotto A.K.Jain(H.U.F.).Therefore,itappearsthatsomemischiefwasplayedby filingsuitsincollusionasitisanadmittedpositionforaccusedno.1that owner Mr. Kasliwal is his distant cousin. On the contrary it shows fabricationofdocuments.Therefore,itisverydifficulttorelyuponthis pieceofevidence. Duringinvestigation,P .W.15alsoseizedsomebooks

SPECIALCASE62of2005

67

regardingrentreceipts.Thesebooksshowthatthereceiptswereissuedto A.K.Jain(H.U.F.)andAnitaJainfortheyear1987andfromtheyear1990 to1993.However,itispertinenttonotethatthoughaccusedno.1inhis property returns of the year 1993 informed to the Government about surrenderingthistenancyrightsbyhisfamilymembersbutdidnotinform aboutthereceiptofanyamountfromKasliwalBrothers.Accusedno.2had alsonotinformedthispartofincomeinherIncomeTaxReturns.Similaris thecaseinrespectofreturnsofA.K.Jain(H.U.F.)whichwerefiledonlyfor theyear19911992.Noneoftheaccusedhastookpainstoproduceon recordI.T.ReturnsofA.K.Jain(H.U.F.). 61. Apart from this, it is also pertinent to note here that

prosecutionwiththehelpofevidenceofP .W.8,whothenwasworkingasa SupervisorinAwardofficeofBMCinwhichKopargaonEstateissituated proved that no sheds bearing nos 1A to 1G were in existence in the premisesofKopargaonEstate.Thiswitnesshasalsoproducedonrecord copyofInspectionBookwhichismarkedasExh.192(colly.).Prosecution hasalsoexaminedP .W.5,whoisoneoftenantofKopargaonEstateatthe relevanttime.Thiswitnesswhiledeposingbeforethiscourtalsostatedthat accusedno.2orherfamilymembersnevertookanyoftheshedonrent.So whenthisevidenceisadducedbytheprosecutioninnegativeformand

SPECIALCASE62of2005

68

particularly to falsify the claim of accused, then accused would have adducedsomepositiveevidenceonthisaspect. 62. Perusalofexplanation(Exh.363)ofaccusedno.1filedatthe

timeofrecordingofhisstatementu/s.313ofCr.P .C.showsthatKasliwal Brothers are distant cousins of accused no.1. In the said explanation, thoughaccusedclaimedthathetooktwoshedsonrentbutnotstatedasto whentheyweretaken.Similarly,ithasalsonotbeenclarifiedbyaccused no.2forwhatpurposestheyhavetookthesetwoshedsonrentandwhat businessoractivitiestheyhavecarriedoutinthesesheds.Itisalsostated intheexplanationfiledalongwithlistExh.367thatthoseshedswerelying unused and unoccupied till the year 1993. Moreover, it also does not reasontomindthatwhentheseshedswerenotoccupiedorusedandwhen ownersofthoseshedsarethedistantcousinsofaccusedno.1,howand whycompensationofRs.5,00,000/eachwaspaidtoaccusedno.2and A.K.Jain (H.U.F.) by Kasliwal Brothers. P .W. 15, Investigating Officer deposed before this court that owner Kasliwal is still alive and this statementhasnotbeendeniedbytheaccusedduringcrossexamination. Besidesthis,accusedhasalsonotfiledanyreceiptspriorto year1987. Undersuchcircumstances,itwasthedutyofaccusedno.2toexaminethe ownerofKopargaonEstateinsupportofherclaimandparticularlywhen

SPECIALCASE62of2005

69

heisthedistantcousinofaccusedno.1.However,Kasliwalhasnotbeen examined. P .W.15 also deposed that he issued notice to Mr. Kasliwal to appear before him as a witness but he didnot turn up. Therefore, non examinationofMr.Kasliwalbytheaccusedandthedocumentsavailableon recordcoupledwiththecircumstancereferredtoabove,itcannotbesaid thatincomeofRs.10,00,000/wasreceivedbyaccusedno.2andA.K.Jain (H.U.F.). It is settled position of law that when accused is claiming a particular income and when all the facts are exclusively within his knowledge,theninviewofsection106ofIndianEvidenceAct,itisfor accusedtoprovethispartofincomewhichhasnotbeenproved.Therefore, thispartofincomewasrightlyrejectedbytheInvestigatingOfficer. 63. Ithasnotbeendisputedbytheprosecutionthataccusedno.2

earnedincomefromvarioussourcesasunder: (A) Dividendonshares Rs.24,302/

(B) SurvivalbenefitonL.I.C.Policies Rs.35,000/ (C) (D) SaleofSilverOrnaments SaleofGoldOrnaments Rs.10,915/ Rs.40,021/ Rs.9,391/

(E) InterestsondepositsfromBank

Total: Rs.1,19,629.34/

SPECIALCASE62of2005 64.

70

So, sum and substance of this discussion would show that

accusedno.2personallyearnedincomeofRs,2,60,009/duringthecheck period.Outofit,accusedno.2investedamountofRs.1,00,000/inher nameinDeccanQueenRestaurant. 65. Apart from her personal heads of income, accused no.2 has

claimed income of Rs.18,44,500/ earned towards deposit and rent receivedbySaralKantaJainFamilyTrustofwhichsheisthesoletrustee. SheclaimedthatthisincomewasreceivedfromOtisElevatorforletting out two premises to it situated at Rehem Mansion No.1 and Cardinal GraciousBuildingownedbyRomanCatholicCathedralTrust,Mumbai.Itis alsoclaimedbyaccusedno.2thatshereceivedamountofRs.15lacsas deposit from OTIS elevators and received rent of Rs. 3,45,500/. InvestigatingofficerhasnotdisputedreceiptoftheseamountsbyS.K.Jain FamilyTrustbutherejectedthisincomeonthegroundthataspersection7 (2)ofBombayRent,Hotel&LodgingRatescontrolAct.1947whichwas theninexistence,itwasprohibitedtoreceiveanyamountasalicencefee foranythingexcesstothestandardrentandattherelevanttimestandard rentofthesetwopremiseswereRs. 202/andRs.46.85pspermonth respectively.Healsorejectedthispartofincomeonthegroundthatunder Section18(1)ofthesameActitisprohibitedtoreceiveanyamountasa

SPECIALCASE62of2005

71

depositwhilelettingoutthepremises.Accordingtoinvestigatingofficer, thispartofincomewouldhavenotearnedfromlawfulsource.Section13 (1)(e)ofPCAct.1988definesterm,knownsourcesofincomeasthe income earned from lawful sources. However, the said definition is providedinrespectofincomeearnedbyapublicservantandnotbyanon publicservant.Admittedly,accusedno.2isnotapublicservantandforthe violationofprovisionsofsection7(2)and18(1)oftheBombayRentActa properactioncouldbetakenagainstaccusedno.2,butthiscourtisofthe opinionthatinvestigatingofficerhaswronglyrejectedthispartofincome. 66. Itisfurthercaseofaccusedno.2thatoutofamountofdeposit

obtainedfromOTISelevatorssheinvestedamountofRs.14lacsinthe year1990withM/sK.V .EnterprisesandreceivedinterestofRs.1lacinthe year1992andalsogotreturnamountofRs.14lacsinthatyearfromK.V . Enterprises.However,balancesheetofSaralKantaJainFamilyTrustfiled inrespectoftransactionsdoneduringtheperiodfrom1991to1993show that only amount of Rs. 1 lac was received from K.V . Enterprises and amountofRs.14lacswasnotreturnedtothesaidtruston27.07.1992 eveninthesubsequentITreturnsalsothistrustnevershowedthatamount ofRs.14lacswasreturnedbyK.V .Enterprisestilltheendofcheckperiod. Thereforesomeandsubstanceofthisdiscussionleadstoaninferencethat

SPECIALCASE62of2005

72

throughS.K.JainfamilyTrustofwhichaccusedno.2isthesoletrustee incomeofRs.4,44,500/wasearnedbyaccusedno.2. 67. Ld.SPPvehementlyarguedthatitisalsonotpermissibleforthe

familymembersofapublicservanttoengageinmoneylendingbusiness and therefore income of Rs. 1 lac has been rightly rejected by the investigatingofficer.Tothecontraryadv.foraccusedsubmittedthatmerely givingamountbychequeononeortwooccasionscannotbetermedasa moneylendingtransactionevenifinterestisreceivedonit.Insupportof hiscontentionhereliedupononejudgmentofHonbleBombayHighCourt reportedin1994MaharashtraLawJournal380inwhichfollowingratiois laiddown; (a) Bombay Money Lenders Act (31 of 1947), S. 2(9)(f) and NegotiableInstrumentAct,1981,S.13(1)Amountadvancedbycheque forbeingrepaidbackwithinterestAdvancehavingbeenmadeonthe basis of a negotiable instrument other than a promissory note, transaction not loan under section 2(9)(f) of the Bombay Money LenderAct. 68. Ihavegonethroughthesaidjudgment.Itisnotthecaseof

prosecutionthataccusedno.2wasregularlyusedtolendmoneytovarious personsoninterestanditappearsthatshehadenteredinsuchtypeof

SPECIALCASE62of2005

73

transactiononlyononeortwooccasions.Therefore,aftergoingthrough theobservationsmadeintheaforesaidjudgmentitcannotbesaidthat accused no. 2 earned interest by unlawful source. Similarly, S.K. Jain Family trust also received interest of Rs. 88,984/ from Shri. Sahyog Exhibitors Private Limited, Aurangabad on amount of Rs. 2,40,000/in formofoneplotsituatedatValadgaon.However,fortheaforesaidreasons itcanbesaidthatthesaidpartofincomewaswronglyrejectedbythe investigating officer. However, at the same time accused no.2 has not explainedastofromwhichsourceamountofRs.2,40,000/wasearnedby S.K.Jainfamilytrustanditappearsthatitwasgivenoutofrentreceived fromOTISelevators.Nowtherefore,sumandsubstanceofthisdiscussion lead to an inference that S.K. Jain family trust received amount of Rs. 18,44,500/ from OTIS elevators towards deposit and rent. Out of it amountofRs.14lacswasgiventoK.V .Enterprisesanditwasnotreturned tilltheendofcheckperiod.OutofremainingamountofRs.4,44,500/the said trust advanced amount of Rs. 2,40,000/ to Sahyog Exhibitors. In addition,ithasreceivedamountofRs.1lacfromK.V .Enterprises.Sothe net income after deducting payment made to Sahyog Exhibitors earned fromthesetransactionsbythesaidtrustwouldbeofRs.3,04,500/. 69. It has not been disputed by accused no. 2 that she acquired

SPECIALCASE62of2005 followingassets. 1. 2.

74

VCRofnationalmake Investmentinsharesanddebentures from1989to1992

Rs.10,800/

Rs.2,10,100/ Rs.70,843/ Rs.15,800/

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Bankbalanceon31.03.1995 ColourTVofOnidamake

Investmentinassociatedbusinesstechnology Rs.20,000/ NikitashacolourTV Godrejrefrigerator Clothesfoundduringhousesearch Cashinhandon31.03.1995 Twoairconditioner Rs.9,600/ Rs.5150/ Rs.4200/ Rs.48,002/ Rs.10,000/

70.

11. MusicsystemofSonymake Rs.19,550/ Total Rs.4,24,045/ Accused no. 2 has also not disputed following heads of

expendituresincurredbyher. 1. 2. PremiumpaidtowardstwoLICpolicies Incometaxpaidfrom199091to199192 andfor199394to199596 Rs.5977/ Rs.87601/

Total Rs.93,578

SPECIALCASE62of2005 71.

75

Accused no.2 has also not disputed following heads of

expenditureincurredbyS.K.Jainfamilytrust 1. 2. 3. Incometaxpaidfrom199293to199596 Rs.65,562/

TaxdeductedatsourcebySahyogExhibitors Rs.17,744/ AmountpaidtoRomanCatholicCathedral Trustasservicecharges Rs.44,316/

Total Rs.1,27,622/ 72. Accusedno.2hasalsonotdisputedthatS.K.Jainfamilytrust

purchasedoneplotatvillageErangale,Malad,Malawani,Mumbaifora considerationofRs.25,000/.Accusedno.2hasalsonotdisputedthatin theyear1992sharesofRs.20,000/ofVideoconNarmadawerepurchased byS.K.Jainfamilytrust.ThisisaassetsacquiredbyS.K.Jainfamilytrust. Therefore, after calculating these figures financial position of S.K. Jain familytrustappearstobeasunder; Income Expenditure Rs.3,04,500/ Rs.1,77,622/

Likelysavings Rs.1,26,878/ Assets Rs.45,000/

SPECIALCASE62of2005

76

Cashinhandon31.03.1995 Rs.1,06,966/ Bankbalanceon31.03.1995 Rs.28,719/ 73. Thus,thiscalculationshowsthatS.K.Jainfamilytrustwasalso

inpossessionofdisproportionateassetsamountingtoRs.53,807/. 74. under; Income Expenditure Rs.1,61,009/ Rs.96,578/ Similarly,financialpositionofaccusedno.2appearstobeas

Likelysavings Rs.0,64,431/ Assets 75. Rs.4,24,045/

Itisanadmittedpositionthataccusedno.2wasasoletrustee

ofS.K.Jainfamilytrusttilltheendofcheckperiodandshewaslooking afterallthefinancialaffairsofthesaidtrust.Accusedno.1inhiswritten statementfiledalongwithstatementundersection313ofCr.P .C.andhis explanationstatedthatS.K.Jainfamilytrustwasformedbyhismaternal uncleforthewelfareofhisminorchildren.However,hehasnotshownas tohowtherewaswelfareofhischildrenbecauseofformingofthistrust. on the contrary it appears that the said trust was not engaged in any charitableactivitiesbutwasengagedinpropertybusiness.Excepttaking thepremisesonrentandinvestingthemoneyintwofirms,nothinghas

SPECIALCASE62of2005

77

beendonebythistrust.Infactitcanbesaidthatthesaidtrustwasfound onlytoavailtaxbenefitsandfornoanyothergoodreason.Therefore,the transactions carried out by this trust are to be considered as the transactions of accused no. 2. Therefore, assets of Rs. 53,807/ found disproportionate with the said trust is to be included in the assets of accused no.2. Therefore, the assets worth of Rs. 4,13,421/ have been foundtobedisproportionateascomparedwiththeincomeofaccusedno.2 andS.K.Jainfamilytrust.Ihavealreadyobservedthatbesidesthisitalso appearsthataccusedno.1invested amountofRs.4lacsinDeccanQueenRestaurantinthenameofaccused no.2.Sothecumulativeeffectisthataccusedno.1investedamountofRs. 8,13,421/inthenameofaccusedno.2.However,italsoappearsthatS.K. JainfamilytrustalsoearnedinterestfromthesavingsinthebankofRs. 18,844/.Therefore,thispartisrequiredtobeexcludedfromtheamount investedbyaccusedno.1inthenameofaccusedno.2andS.K.Jainfamily trustandafterdeductionitcomestoRs.7,94,577/. 76. After carrying out calculations in respect of accused no. 2,

RahulJainandVipulJain,A.K.Jain(HUF)andS.K.Jainfamilytrust,itis necessarytocalculatetheamountsinrespectofincome,expenditureand assetsofaccusedno.1independentlyandaccordingtoprosecutionitisas

SPECIALCASE62of2005 under;

78

Incomeofaccusedno.1 1. NetsalaryreceivedasaAssociateprofessor from05.03.1974to27.07.1981 2. NetsalaryreceivedasPanchayatRaj officerfrom31.07.1981toAugust1982 3. Netsalaryreceivedduringcheckperiod i.e.from01.09.1982to31.03.1995 4. Profitsfromthesaleofopenplot situatedatMawanaon30.11.1990 5. Profitearnedfromreinvestmentmade inNationalSavingCertificates 6. Amountreceivedonsurrenderof LICPolicy 7. Depositreceivedatthetimeofgivingplot onrentsituatedatAurangabad 8. Interestearnedfromvariousbanks duringcheckperiod 9. Amountreceivedfromthesaleof goldornaments Rs.45,140/ Rs.40,589.74ps Rs.50,000/(Admitted) Rs.11,307/(Admitted) Rs.86,175/(Admitted) Rs.9,700/ Rs.5,48,571/ Rs.13,810/ Rs.76,459/

SPECIALCASE62of2005 10.

79

Amountreceivedthroughsaleof refrigerator Rs.7,000/

Total Rs.8,88,751.74 Expenditureofaccusedno.1 1. Nonprovableexpenditureattherateof 33%ongrosssalaryofRs.6,75,447.80 2. 3. 4. PremiumpaidonLICPolicy AmountpaidtoCricketClubofIndia AmountpaidtoNationalSportsClub ofIndia,Mumbai 5. AmountpaidtoUnitedServicesClub, Mumbai 6. AmountspentforvisittoSingapur& Mauritius 7. 8. Houserentpriortocheckperiod MaintenanceofScooterpriorto checkperiod 9. Expenditurefortheeducationof Rs.3,000/ Rs.25,687/ Rs.14,429/ (Admitted) Rs.17,453/ (Admitted) Rs.5000/ Rs.1,77,124/ Rs.7,408/(Admitted) Rs.46,396/(Admitted) Rs.2,22,897.77

SPECIALCASE62of2005 twominorsons 10. 11. 12.

80 (Admitted) Rs.953/ (Admitted) Rs.16,800/ Rs.1,005/ (Admitted) Rs.916.75 (Admitted) Rs.2,810/ (Admitted) Rs.42,755/ (Admitted) Rs.7,390/(Admitted) Rs.516/ (Admitted) Rs.3,310/

Amountofcommissionpaidtothebank AmountspentforthefuelofMarutiVan ChargespaidtoRTOfortransferof MarutiVan

13.

TaxpaidfortheplotatKiradpura, Aurangabad

14.

Stampdutypaidforregistration forplotofErangle

15.

AmountpaidtoN5CIDCOAurangabad inrespectofplotno.93

16. 17.

Amountpaidasincometaxfrom199095 AmountcontributedforChiefMinisters Relieffund

18.

Chargespaidtothesocietyforthe transferofplotatMawana

19.

AmountspentbyusingCityBankDiners CardandVisaCard

Rs.15,802/ (Admitted) Rs.4,685/ (Admitted)

20.

Amountpaidfortheregistrationofplot atKiradpuraAurangabad

SPECIALCASE62of2005 21.

81 Rs.3,627/

Expensesincurredonconsumptionof LPGas

Total Rs.6,19,964.52 Assetsofaccusedno.1 1. HousepurchasedatJahangirabadin theyear1991 2. Bungalowatplotno.93,N5CIDCO Aurangabad. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. OpenplotpurchasedatBangalore OrsonmakeblackandwhiteTV VideoconWashingmachine Sonymakemusicsystem OnidamakecolourTV Vacuumcleaner VideoconAircooler Nikitashakitchenette NationalSavingCertificate AmountkeptatFDinbank Bankbalanceon31.03.1995 Rs.1,59,200/(Admitted) Rs.0,02,100/(Admitted) Rs.0,06,000/(Admitted) Rs.0,20,000/ Rs.0,16,460/ Rs.0,03,990/ Rs.0,02,660/(Admitted) Rs.0,02,323/(Admitted) Rs.1,10,000/(Admitted) Rs.0,25,000/(Admitted) Rs.0,22,882.43(Admitted) Rs.8,05,510/ Rs.1,80,000/

SPECIALCASE62of2005

82

withBombayMechanicalCoop Bank,branchColaba,Mumbai 14. Bankbalanceon31.03.1995 withBombayMechanicalCoop Bank,branchAuragabad 15. Bankbalanceon31.03.1995 withVyasyaBank,branchNanded 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Godrejrefrigerator Clothesfoundduringhousesearch Goodsfoundduringhousesearch Furnituresandfixtures Audiocassettes Residentmakesuitcase BalanceinPPFaccount Cashinhandon31.03.1995 Musicsystem Portabletypewriter MarutiVan Rs,0,10,800/(Admitted) Rs,0,32,200/ Rs.0,01,571/(Admitted) Rs.0,15,000/(Admitted) Rs.0,02,426/(Admitted) Rs,0,03,000/(Admitted) Rs.0,11,022/(Admitted) Rs.0,16,376.70/(Admitted) Rs.0,10,000/ Rs.0,01,200/(Admitted) Rs.0,40,000/ Rs.0,29,698/(Admitted) Rs.0,53,053.90(Admitted)

Total Rs.15,82,476.32

SPECIALCASE62of2005 77.

83

Following part of income claimed by accused no.1 has been

rejectedbytheprosecution 1. Scooterreceivedasgiftprior tocheckperiod 2. Tuitionfeereceivedpriorto checkperiod 3. Feesreceivedasexaminer priortocheckperiod 4. Excessprofitclaimedfromthesaleof plotsituatedatKiradpura,Auragabad 5. Giftreceivedduringmarriageof brother 6. 7. Amountreceivedasaincomefromthe Rs.0,17,000/ businessoffatherpriortocheckperiod Amountreceivedasarentinrespectof Rs.0,95,200/ housepurchasedatJanhagirabad Total Rs.2,11,820/ 78. Therefore, this court has to consider as to what has been Rs.0,05,000/ Rs.0,34,620/ Rs.0,07,000/ Rs.0,10,000/ Rs.0,42,000/

provedbytheprosecutionbeforethiscourtandwhethersomeoftheheads

SPECIALCASE62of2005

84

ofincomewererightlyrejectedornotbytheinvestigatingofficer.Priorto thatitisalsonecessarytoseeastowhathasbeenadmittedbytheaccused inthisregard. 79. Itispertinenttonotethatthoughthischeckperiodhasbeen

fixedfrom01.09.1982to31.03.1995,investigatingofficerhadconsidered theincome earnedbyaccusedno.1 from 1974 to1982also.However, investigatingofficerhasalsocalculatedsomeoftheheadsofexpenditure incurredbyaccusedno.1duringthesaidperiod.Inordertoarriveat a conclusionastowhatamountactuallywaswithaccusedno.1onthedate ofthecommencementofthecheckperiod,investigatingofficerdonethis exercise. However, he had segregated these figures with the figures of check period. Therefore, it is necessary for this court to separate these figures.Itisalsopertinent thataccusedhasalsonotspecificallypointed outastowhatwasthebalancewithhimonthedateofjoiningIndian Policeservicesi.e.01.09.1982.Itisamatterofrulethatapublicservant hastofiledetailsofthepropertyacquiredpriortothedateofjoiningof serviceswiththeconcernGovernment.However,thoughaccusedclaimed thathesubmittedthatformwiththeGovernment,hehasnotfileditscopy beforethiscourt.Investigatingofficerhadtriedtoobtaincopyofthisform byissuingalettertothegovernment,butitwasnotsuppliedtohim.Under

SPECIALCASE62of2005

85

suchcircumstancesitisthedutyofaccusedno.1toproducecopyofsaid form.Therefore,nowthiscourthastocalculatethefiguresavailableon record.Fromrecorditappearsthataccusedno.1receivedgrosssalaryof Rs.1,02,442andnetsalaryofRs.90,269/priortocheckperiod.Fromthis amountnonprovableexpendituretotheextentof33%isrequiredtobe excludedfromtheamountofgrosssalaryasaccusedno.1hasnottaken anyspecificstandaboutit.ThesaidamountcomestoRs.33,805/.After deductingthisamountfromthegrosssalaryamountofRs.68,637/could bethelikelysavingofaccusedno.1priortocheckperiod.Itisthecaseof accusedno.1thatheearnedamountofRs.42,000/towardstuitionfee andRs.7,000/towardsexaminerfeeswhilehewasworkingasaassociate professorpriortocheckperiod.However,prosecutionhasrejectedclaimof tuition fees on the ground that as per government rules no professor attached with a Government aided college can take private tuitions. Accusedno.1alongwithlistExh.367producedoneletterissuedbythe Principalofconcerncollegewheretheaccusedservedandasperthesaid letteritisinformedthatthesaidcollegethoughaidedbytheGovernment but its staff is not controlled by All India Service rules for Central Governmentservicerules.Thisletteralsostatesthatthiscollegeusedto pay remuneration to its teaching staff for evaluation of papers. During

SPECIALCASE62of2005

86

investigation,investigatingofficercollectedinformationfromthePrincipal ofthesaidcollegeinrespectofexaminershipfeespaidtoaccusedno.1 whichisatExh.65.Asperthesaidletterdated09.01.2000itwasinformed toinvestigatingofficerthatnoexaminershipfeeswaspaidtoaccusedno.1 whilehewasworkinginthesaidcollege.Itwasalsoinformedbythisletter thattakingofprivatetuitionbythestaffofsaidcollegewasalsobanned. Therefore,itappearsthatnowaccusedno.1obtained anotherletterto counterthecontentsofExh.65,particularlyafterclosingofevidencebythe prosecution. The letter filed by accused bears date 01.12.2012. It was obtainedatabelatedstage.Admittedly,ithasnotbeenconfrontedtoany prosecution witness. Moreover, prior to initiation of evidence of prosecutionaccusedadmittedletterExh.65.Accusedno.1alsonotfiled anydocumenttoshowthathehadearnedthisincome.Therefore,Ifindno substanceintheletterissuedon01.12.2012andinthesubmissionmade bytheaccused.Therefore,thiscourtisoftheopinionthatthispartofthe incomewasrightlyrejectedbytheinvestigatingofficer.Accusedno.1has alsonotdisputedstatementofthesalaryreceivedbyhimasaassociate professor.Therefore,thiscourtheldthatonthedateofcommencementof thecheckperiodlikelysavingsofaccusedno.1wereofRs.68,637/. 80. Nowcomingtothecheckperioditispertinentthataccusedno.

SPECIALCASE62of2005

87

1hasadmittedseveralheadsofhisincome,expenditureandassetsand disputedsomepartofit.Itisthecontentionofaccusedno.1thatfromthe saleofopenplotsituatedatKiradpura,Aurangabadheearnedamountof Rs.80,000/,however,inhisITreturnsfiledforthecorrespondingyeari.e. 19911992accusedno.1hasshownthatheearnedprofitofRs.45,380/ fromthesaleofsaidplot.Itisalsotranspiredduringinvestigationthatrest of the amount from profit was shown to have been expended for the development of the said plot. Therefore, I find no substance in the contentionofaccusedno.1thathisincomeinrespectofthisplothasbeen reducedbytheinvestigatingofficer.Onthecontrarythiscourtisofthe opinionthattheincomehasbeenrightlyrejected. 81. Accused no. 1 has also claimed that he received gifts of Rs.

5000/duringthemarriageofhisbrother.However,asperrule11(3)(a)of AllIndiaservices(Conduct)Rulesagovernmentservanthastointimate aboutreceiptofgiftfromrelativetothegovernment.However,accusedno. 1hadnotintimatedittothegovernmentandthereforethiscourtisofthe opinion that this part of income is rightly rejected by the investigating officer. 82. During investigation accused no. 1 also claimed to have

receivedamountofRs.17,000/fromthefirmofhisfathernamelyBeauty

SPECIALCASE62of2005

88

Arts printing press. However, this income has been rejected by the investigatingofficeronthegroundthatnodocumenthasbeenproducedby theaccusedno.1.However,itappearsthatinvestigatingofficerhasstated inchargesheetthatthispartofincomewasinformedbyaccusedno.1to thegovernmentinhispropertyform.Therefore,itisnecessarytoinclude thispartofincomeinthetableofincomeofaccusedno.1. 83. Accused no. 1 also claimed that he received amount of Rs.

95,200/fromStateBankofIndiatowhomherentedhishousesituatedat Jahagirabad,U.P .towardsrentanddeposit.However,duringinvestigation aswellastrialaccusedno.1hasfailedtoproduceanydocumenttoprove thispartyofincomenorhehasexaminedanywitnessinsupportofthis contention.Therefore,thiscourthasfindnothingwrongforrejectionof thispartofincome. 84. Nowcomingtotheotherincomeofaccusedno.1,itisthecase

of prosecution that during the check period accused no. 1 received net salaryofRs.5,48,571/.However,accusedno.1hasdisputedthisfigure anditishiscasefrom1974till1995hehadreceivednetsalarytothe extent of Rs. 7,01,441/. However, accused no. 1 had not specifically pointedoutastohowhearrivedatthisfigure.Adv.foraccusedhasalso notarguedanythingindetailonthisaspect.Itappearsthatinvestigating

SPECIALCASE62of2005

89

officercollecteddocumentspertainstodisbursementofsalarytoaccused no.1fromconcernauthoritiesandthencalculatedthesaidfigure.Nothing hasbeenbroughtduringthecrossexaminationofP .W.15aboutthisfigure. Accusedno.1hasalsonotadducedanyevidenceinthisregard.Therefore, ithastobesaidthatprosecutionhasrightlycontendedthataccusedno.1 receivednetsalaryofRs.5,48,571/. 85. Accusedno.1alsoclaimedthathereceivedspecialpayadvance

duringaperiodofprobationtotheextentofRs.3,588/butthisincomehas not been shown by the investigating officer. However, this was never intimated by accused no. 1 to the investigating officer when he filed explanation.Hehasalsonotproducedanydocumentsonrecordtoprove thisincome.Therefore,thispartofincomehastoberejected. 86. Accused no. 1 also contended that he earned profit of Rs.

34,000/bysaleofplotsituatedatMawanaintheyear1990.However,in hisITreturnsfortheyear199192hehasshownthatheincurredexpenses ofRs.32,300/forthecostanddevelopmentofthesaidplotandearned only Rs.9,700/. Therefore, the figure arrived at by the investigating officerisfoundtobecorrect.Asfarasrestofthepartofincomeofaccused no.1,thathasnotbeendisputedbytheprosecution. 87. Nowcomingtotheassetspart,accusedno.1hasstatedthat

SPECIALCASE62of2005

90

costofhouseatJahangirabadhasbeenshownexcessbytheinvestigating officertotheextentofRs.40,000/andinfacthehadpurchaseditfora consideration of Rs.1,40,000/. However, in the explanation dated 14.08.2000, accused no.1 stated that he had purchased house at Jahangirabad for Rs.1,40,000/ and spent amount of Rs. 40,000/ for registrationanddevelopmentofthesaidproperty.Therefore,itcannotbe saidthatvalueofcosthasbeenshownexcessively. 88. Itisthecontentionofaccusedno.1thathepurchasedplotno.

93inN5areaofCIDCOAurangabadforaconsiderationofRS.14,000/, butinvestigatingofficerhasincludedvalueofthesaidplottotheextentof Rs.1,36,200/withoutanybasis.Thereappearsforceinthiscontentionof accusedno.1.Duringtrialprosecutionhasfailedtopointoutastohow theyhaveincludedamountofRs.1,36,200/asavalueofthesaidplot. Therefore,thisamounthastobeexcludedfromthevaluationoftheplot and house constructed on it. In this regard accused no. 1 during cross examination suggested to P .W.12 Kashinath Gadekar who calculated the constructioncostofthehousebuiltuponthesaidplotthathehaswrongly calculated the figure. However, no specific cross examination has been done to this witness in order to show that the valuation is wrong. Moreover,inthechartExh.388accusedno.1 hasnotdisputedfigureof

SPECIALCASE62of2005

91

the valuation of the house. Therefore, after deducting the value of plot includedbytheinvestigatingofficeralongwithvaluation,itcanbesaid thatthevalueofplotandofconstructionwouldbeofRs.6,69,510/. 89. Itisalsocontendedbyaccusedno.1thatintheyear1995,he

purchased a Sanyo make tape recorder from one Archana Mali for Rs. 10,000/butinvestigatingofficerhasshownitscostasRs.20,000/.In supportofhiscontentionhereliedupononepropertyreturnformfiledby himtothegovernmentwhichismarkedasExh.300.Perusalofthisform shows that the said recorder was purchased by accused no. 1 for Rs. 10,000/.Thoughitisclaimedbytheinvestigatingofficerthatherecorded statementofMrs.Malibutshehasnotbeenexaminedbytheprosecution. Moreover, there is no reason to discard form Exh. 300. Therefore, this benefitofRs.10,000/isrequiredtobegiventoaccusedno.1. 90. Accusedno.1alsoclaimedthathepurchasedOnidacolourTV

on15.06.1992foraconsiderationofRs.13,800/butitsvaluehasbeen shownbytheinvestigatingofficerasRs.16,460/.However,ITreturnsof accusedno.1filedfortheyear199394showsthatitwaspurchasedfor Rs.16,460/.Therefore,thiscourtfindnosubstanceinthecontentionof accusedno.1madeinthisregard.Similaristhecaseinrespectofcostof vaccumcleaner,thereforeIfindnoforceinthecontentionofaccusedno.1

SPECIALCASE62of2005

92

thatcostofvaccumcleanerisenhancedbytheinvestigatingofficer. 91. Clothesofaccusedno.1foundduringhishousesearchwere

valuedatRs.32,200/bytheinvestigatingofficer.Accusedno.1hasnot disputedrecoveryoftheseclothesbutitishiscasethatthosewereofRs. 18,500/However,accusedno.1hasnotshownanythinginsupportofhis claim.Nocrossexaminationhasbeendonetotheinvestigatingofficeron thisaspect.Therefore,Ifindnosubstanceinthecontentionofaccusedthat hisclotheswereexcessivelyvalued.Itisalsocontentionofaccusedno.1 that cost of his Maruti van is shown as Rs. 40,000/ but in fact he purchased it forRs. 30,000/. In support ofhiscontention he filed one receiptissuedbythevendorofthatMarutiVanwhichisatExh.376.This receipt shows that owner of the van issued receipt of RS. 30,000/ to accusedno.1.Prosecutionhasnotproducedanydocumentinsupportof itscontention.Thesaidreceiptalsoshowsthatthepaymentwasmadeby cheque.Therefore,thereissubstanceinthecontentionofaccusedthathe purchasedMarutiVanforaconsiderationofRs.30,000/andamountof Rs.10,000/isaddedtoit.Moreover,inhispropertyreturnsalsoaccused no.1informedtothegovernmentthathehaspurchasedthisvanforRs. 30,000/.Therefore,itisnecessarytoreducevalueofassetstotheextent ofRs.1,56,200/.Restoftheheadsofassetshavebeenadmittedbythe

SPECIALCASE62of2005 accused. 92.

93

Now turning to the part of expenditure, accused no. 1 has

statedthatamountofhisnonprovablehouseholdexpenditurehasbeen wronglycalculated.However,accusedno.1hasfailedtoshowastohow the said amount is wrongly calculated. I have already pointed out that accusedno.1hadreceivedgrosssalaryofRs.6,75,447.80duringthecheck period.Its33%comestoRs.2,22,897.77.Sothishastobeconsideredas thenonprovableexpenditureofaccusedno.1duringthecheckperiod. 93. Accusedno.1tookastandthatduringthecheckperiodhepaid

amount of Rs. 1,53,893/ as a premium towards his LIC policy, but prosecution has wrongly shown its figure as Rs. 1,97,124/. Perusal of recordshowthatinvestigatingofficerhadincludedfiguresofpremiumpaid prior to check period and therefore, this court find substance in the contentionofaccusedno.1.Italsoappearthathehasproperlycalculated figures of premium paid by him during the check period. Therefore, amount of Rs. 43,231/ is required to be excluded from this part of expenditure. It also appears to this court that investigating officer has includedamountofRs.5000/asarentpaidbyaccusedno.1priorto check period therefore, this item is also required to be excluded from expenditurepart.

SPECIALCASE62of2005 94.

94

Itisalsocaseoftheprosecutionthataccusedno.1incurred

expenditureofRs.3000/formaintenanceofhisscooterpriortocheck period.However,itissurprisingthatinvestigatingofficerrejectedclaimof accusedno.1thathereceivedonescooterasagiftpriortocheckperiod but included expenditure incurred for that scooter. Therefore, this also requiredtobeexcludedfromexpenditurepart. 95. Perusalofrecordshowsthatinspiteofcalculatingnonprovable

household expenditure, investigating officer also included expenditure incurred by accused no. 1 for consumption of LP gas during the check period which can not be permitted by any stretch of imagination. Therefore,amountofRs.3627/hastobeexcludedfromtheexpenditure column. 96. InvestigatingofficerhascalculatedexpenditureofRs.16,800/

incurredbyaccusedno.1forfuelconsumptionofhisMarutivan.According to accused no. 1 he incurredexpenses of Rs. 2900/ for fuel. However, accusedno.1hasfailedtoprovethispartofexpenditure.Therefore,Ifind nosubstanceinthiscontentionofaccusedno.1. 97. Further it appears to this court that investigating officer

includedamountofRS.3310/astheexpensesincurredbyaccusedno.1as transfer charges of plot situated at Mawana inspite of the fact that he

SPECIALCASE62of2005

95

alreadycalculatedtheseexpenseswhilecalculatingprofitearnedfromthe sale of this plot. Therefore, this amount has to be excluded from the expenditurepart.Restoftheitemsinrespectofincome,expenditureand assets have been admitted by the accused no.1. Now therefore after consideringentirematerialthiscourtisoftheopinionthattotalamountof Rs. 58,168/ is required to be excluded from the expenditure part of accusedno.1.Restoftheheadsofexpenditurehavebeenadmittedbythe accused. 98. Havingregardtothisdiscussionfinancialpositionofaccused

no.1attheendofcheckperiodappearstobeasunder; Likelysavingsatthestartofcheckperiod includingamountreceivedfromtheprinting pressoffatherasaprofit. Incomeduringcheckperiodafterdeducting salaryamountreceivedpriortocheckperiod Incomeearnedthroughsaleofplotsituated Rs.45,380/ atKiradPura,Aurangabad. TotalIncome Rs.9,29,499.74 Expenditureincurredduringcheckperiod Rs.5,61,796.75 Likelysavingsduringcheckperiod including Rs.3,67,702.99 Rs.7,98,482.74 Rs.85,637/

SPECIALCASE62of2005

96

theamountoflikelysavingatthestartof checkperiod Assets Assetsdisproportionatetoknownsources ofincome. 99. This court has already observed that accused no. 1 invested Rs.14,26,473.03 Rs.10,58,770.04

amount in the name of accused no. 2 and his two minor sons of Rs. 7,94,577/andRs.13,40,152.60psrespectively.Therefore,thisamountis alsorequiredtobeincludedintheassetscolumnofaccusedno.1andto the column of assets found disproportionate to the known sources of income of accused no. 1. Therefore, the final calculation would be as under; Likelysavingsatthestartofcheckperiod. Incomeduringcheckperiodafterdeducting salaryamountreceivedpriortocheckperiod. Expenditureincurredduringcheckperiod. Rs.5,61,796.75 Rs.85,637/ Rs.8,43,862.74

Likelysavingsduringcheckperiod including Rs.3,67,702.99 theamountoflikelysavingatthestartof checkperiod. Assetspersonallyacquiredbyaccd.no.1 Rs.14,26,473.03

SPECIALCASE62of2005

97 Rs.21,34,729.60

Assetsacquiredinthenameofaccusedno.2 andtwominorsons.

Totalassets Rs.35,61,202.63 Assetsfoundinthenameofaccd.no.1 whicharedisproportionatetoknownsources ofincome. Totalassetsfounddisproportionatetoknown Rs.31,93,499.64 sourcesofincomeofaccusedno.1. 100. Thus,theabovediscussionleadstoairresistibleconclusionthat Rs.10,58,770.04

accused no.1 not only acquired assets disproportionate to his known sourcesofincomeinhisnamebutalsointhenameofaccusedno.2andhis twominorsons.Thiscourtaftercarryingoutameticulouscalculationand aftergivingeverypossiblebenefitoftheprobabilitytoboththeaccused, found that the assets acquired by accused no.1 in his name and in the nameofhisfamilymembersarenotproportionatetotheirknownsources ofincome.Itisalsopertinentthatevenifrejectedpartoftheincomewhich hasbeenclaimedbyboththeaccusedisincluded,thenevenhisassetsare notseemstobeproportionate. 101. Ld. Advocate for both the accused placed his reliance on a

SPECIALCASE62of2005

98

judgmentdeliveredinthecaseofKrishnanadAgrihotriV/sStateofM.P . (1977)1SCC816inwhichfollowingratiohasbeenlaiddown. Prevention of corruption Act, 1947 Section 5(3) (prior to is amendmentbyAct40of1964)Presumptionwhereaccusedpossesses pecuniaryresourcesorpropertydisproportionatetohisknownsources ofincomeScopeofExtentofdisproportionnecessaryAnexcessof less than ten percent held, would not justify application of the presumption Burden of proving a transaction as benami, held, lies on the personallegingittobeso. 102. I have gone through this judgment. In the said judgment,

disproportionate assets ofaccused were found excess of 10 % only and therefore,benefitofdoubtwasgiventotheaccused.Hereinthepresent casetheassetsfounddisproportionatearealmostthreetimestotheknown sourcesofincomeofaccusedno.1&2,therefore,observationsmadeinthe saidjudgmentareofnousefortheaccused. 103. Ld.Advocateforboththeaccusedalsoplacedhisrelianceon

onemorejudgmentof AIR1981S.C.1186StateofMaharashtraV/s WasudeoRamchandraKaidalwar inwhichfollowingratiohasbeenlaid downbyHonbleApexCourt.

SPECIALCASE62of2005 (A)

99

PreventionofCorruptionAct(2of1947),S.5(2)readwith

S. (1) (e) CORRUPTION PUBLIC SERVANTS Public servant Possession of assets disproportionate to income Failure to account satisfactorilyforsuchpossessionLiabletobeconvictedforoffenceunder S. 5(1) r/w S. 5 (1) (e) Prosecution need not disprove all possible sourcesofhisincome (B) PreventionofCorruptionAct(2of1947).S.5(2)r/wS.5

(1)(e)CORRUPTIONAccusedfoundhavingdisproportionateassets inhispossessionHisdutytoaccountsatisfactorilyforsuchpossession Extent of proof Accused need not prove his innocence beyond all reasonable doubt Preponderanceof probabilityastopossessionset outbyaccusedissufficient. 104. Ihavegonethroughthesaidjudgment.Inthesaidjudgmentit

has been observed that accused can account satisfactorily possession of assetsbybriningprobabilitiesonrecordanditisnotforhimtoaccount possession of assets beyond reasonable doubt. While dealing with the defenceofaccusedthiscourthasconsideredthedefenceofaccusedonthe basisofprobabilityonlyandhasgiveneverypossiblebenefittohim. 105. Similarlyadv.foraccusedalsoplacedhisrelianceononemore

judgmentdeliveredbyHonbleApexCourtinthecaseofN.KrishaReddy,

SPECIALCASE62of2005

100

Appellants V/s State Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad reported (1992) S.C. Cases 45 in which following ratio has been laid down. PreventionofCorruptionAct,1947S.5(1)(e)Ingredientsto beprovedtoestablishchargeunderInitialburdenofproofisonthe prosecutionAfterthatburdenisdischargedbytheprosecution,onus shiftsonaccusedPreventionofCorruptionAct,1988,S.13(1)(e) EvidenceAct,1872,Ss.101102&106 106. Inthesaidcaseithasbeenheldthatinitiallyburdenofproofis

ontheprosecutiontoprovethechargeandafterthatburdenisdischarged onus shift on accused. Priorto givingoffindings this court hasalready discussedthelegalpositionandhasproceededonthislineitself. 107. Adv.foraccusedalsoplacedhisrelianceononejudgmentof

Honble Apex Court reported in 2006 Cr.L.J. 319 DSP Chennai V/s K. Inbasagaraninwhichfollowingrationhasbeenlaiddown; PreventionofCorruptionAct(49of1988),S.13(2),(1)(e) AccusedapublicservantUnaccountedmoneyrecoveredfromhouseof accused in raid by income tax Deptt House in joint possession of accused and his wife Explanation givenby accused that all money belongedtohiswifeWifeadmittingownershipofmoneyrecoveredAll

SPECIALCASE62of2005

101

unaccountedmoneyassessedbyI.T.Deptt.inhandsofwifeofaccused ExplanationgivenbyaccusedisplausibleandjustifiedAccusedcannot beheldguiltyofcorruptioncharge. 108. Onthebasisofthisjudgmentadv.foraccd.contendedthathere

inthiscasealsoaccusedno.2whoisthewifeofaccusedno.1admitted acquiring of most of the assets out of her own income and under such situationbenefitmustbegiventoaccusedno.1.However,inthesaidcase wifeofpublicservantwasfoundrunningtwofactoriesandthereforeitwas foundthatshewashavingindependentsourcesofincome.Moreoverinthe saidcasewifeofpublicservantexaminedherselfasdefencewitnessand probabalisedherdefence.Hereinthiscasenoneoftheaccusedadduced anyevidence.Aftergoingthroughthematerialavailableonrecordthere appearsnoprobabilitythataccusedno.2acquiredassetsoutofherown incomeandnotfromtheincomeofaccusedno.1.Therefore,factsofthis casearealtogetherdifferentascomparedtothefactsofthesaidcase.Soit cannotbemadeapplicabletothefactsofpresentcase. 109. This court has already observed that accused no.1 invested

specificamountinthenameofaccusedno.2andS.K.Jainfamilytrustof whichaccusedno.2isthesoletrustee.Fromrecorditalsoappearsthat accusedno.1hadfabricateddocumentsrelatingtoR.A.E.Suitno.618/93

SPECIALCASE62of2005

102

&620/93andaccusedno.2alsoaidedhimforit.Similarlyaccusedno.2 also aided accused no. 1 for investing amount in various properties. Admittedlyaccusedno.2isnotailliteratelady.Shewaswellawareofthe financial position of accused no.1. Even though she never prevented accusedno.1fromacquiringwealththroughillgottenmoney.Fromallthe transactions of accused no.2 and S.K. Jain family trust it appears that accused no. 2 actively aided and abetted accused no.1 to acquire disproportionateassets.Therefore,itcannotbesaidthataccusedno.2 wascompletelyunawareaboutthetransactionsenteredintoinhername andinthenameofS.K.Jainfamilytrust. 110. Havingregardtothisdiscussionthiscourtisoftheopinionthat

prosecution has proved it beyond reasonable doubt that accused no.1 acquired wealth of Rs.31,93,499.64 ps disproportionate to his known sources of income and accused no.2 aided and abetted him for the acquisition of these assets. Hence, I answer point no. 2 & 3 in the affirmative. ASTOPOINTNO.4 111. Itisthecaseofprosecutionthatintheyear1990accusedno.1

purchased one Maruti Van bearing no. MH 01 1136 from one Virendrakumar Shukla. It is also case of prosecution that at that time

SPECIALCASE62of2005

103

accusedno.1wasworkingasaDeputyCommissionerofPolice,zoneIX, MumbaiandinthesameareasaidVirendraKumarShuklawasoperating asaslumlordandthereforetherewasofficialconnectionofaccusedno.1 withVirendraKumarShuklaandinthatcontexthepurchasedoneMaruti vanfromhimforinadequateconsiderationofRs.30,000/andcommitted offenceu/s11ofP .C.Act1988.However,inthefirstplaceprosecutionhas notproducedanydocumentonrecordtoshowthatsaidVirendrakumar Shuklawastheslumlordatthattime.Inthesecondplaceprosecutionhas notproducedonrecordastohowaconsiderationofs.30,000/wasfound tobeinadequate.Ithasnotbeendisputedbytheprosecutionthatamount of Rs. 30,000/ was paid by accused no.1 to the registered owner Mr. TansukhDoshi.ProsecutionhasexaminedVirendrakunarShuklaaswellas theregisteredownerofthesaidVanMr.TansukhDoshi.However,nothing material has been brought at the time of their evidence. Therefore, in absenceofanypositiveevidence,itisnotpossibleforthiscourttodrawan inferencethataccusedno.1hadacceptedavaluablethingforinadequate considerationandcommittedoffenceundersection11ofP .C.Act.1988. Therefore,Ianswerpointno.4inthenegative. ASTOPOINTNO.5 112. Inviewoffindingsgiventopointnos.2and3boththeaccused

SPECIALCASE62of2005

104

areliabletobeconvictedfortheoffenceunderSection13(1)(e)r/w13 (2)ofP .C.Act1988r/wSection109ofIPCTherefore,Iamtakingpause here to hear the accused no. 1 and 2 and prosecution on the point of sentence. 113. Ihaveheardboththeaccusedonthepointofsentence.Accused

no.1submittedthatatpresentheisundersuspensionandretiringfrom serviceon31.08.2013.Afterthisorderofconvictionheisgoingtoloose pensionbenefits.Heishavingsomanyresponsibilities.Hiseldersonis28 yearsoldandlosthiseyesightbecauseofcerebral hemorrhage. Soat presenthisresponsibilityisonhisshoulders.Hisanothersonandwifeare also dependent on him. Therefore, on these grounds he prayed for minimumsentence. 114. Similarly accused no. 2 submits that she is a old aged lady

having two sons. One of her son has lost his eye sight and completely dependent on her. She further submitted that her family has already suffered a lot because of this prosecution. They are suffering severe financial problem. She further submitted that she is also suffering from variousailments.Therefore,sheprayedforminimumpunishment. 115. AsagainstthisLd.SPPSmt.KalpanaChavancontendedthat

accusedno.1hascommittedseriousoffenceofcorruptionandconsidering

SPECIALCASE62of2005

105

thegravityofoffence,leniencyshouldnotbeshowntoboththeaccused. Shefurtherrequestedtoawardmaximumpunishmenttoboththeaccused. Ld.SPPfurtherrequestedtoconfiscatemovableandimmovableassetsof both the accused under section 452 of Cr.P .C. She also informed that alreadyAntiCorruptionBureau,Gr.Mumbaifiledapplicationinthecourtof SmallCausesforattachmentofthosepropertieswhichispendingforfinal adjudication.InviewofsubmissionofLd.SPPitisanadmittedposition that proceedings are already filed for the attachment of property of accusedno.1andhisfamilymemberaspertheprovisionsofCriminalLaw amendmentsOrdinanceAct.Thereforethereisnoneedforthiscourtto passaseparateorderfortheattachmentofpropertiesofaccusedtothe extentofdisproportionality. 116. No doubt accused no. 1 has committed a serious offence of

corruptionwhichhasresultedcancerousforthesociety.Atpresentcommon citizensarethevictimsofcorruption.Severalcompetentpeopleareloosing theiropportunitiesbecauseofcorruption.Accusedno.1asaofficerofIPS cadreisexpectedtodischargehisdutieswithcompletehonestyandfullest integrity.However,hehadnotactedinthatmannerandbroughthiscadre todisrepute.Similarly,accusedno.2alsoactivelyaidedandabettedhimin amassingdisproportionateassetsbycorruptandillegalmeans. Punishment

SPECIALCASE62of2005

106

forabatementisprovidedundersection109ofIPCandasperthatsection punishment provided for the offence which is abetted can be awarded under this section. Section 13 (2) of P .C. Act 1988 provides minimum punishment of one yearand maximum punishment uptoseven years. It alsoprovidespunishmentoffine.However,consideringthesubmissionof accusedthatoneofhissonisblindandiscompletelydependentonboth theaccusedandthisfacthasnotbeendisputedbytheprosecution,itis necessary to show leniency to some extent while awarding sentence of imprisonmentandfinetoboththeaccused. 117. In view of this discussion and in the opinion of this court

followingorderwillmeettheendsofjustice. ORDER 1. Accused no. 1 Ajaykumar Gyanchand Jain is acquitted under

Section 235 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence punishableundersection11ofPreventionofCorruptionAct1988. 2. Accused no. 1 Ajaykumar Gyanchand Jain and accused no. 2

AnitaAjaykumarJainareherebyconvictedunderSection235(2)ofCode ofCriminalProcedurefortheoffencepunishableunderSection13(1)(e) r/w13(2)ofPreventionofCorruptionAct,1988. 3. Accusedno.1isdirectedtosufferR.I.forthreeyearsandtopay

SPECIALCASE62of2005

107

fineofRs.25,000/andindefaultofpaymentoffineamount,accusedis directedtosufferR.I.forthreemonthsfortheoffencepunishableunder section13(1)(e)r/w13(2)ofPreventionofCorruptionAct,1988. 4. Accusedno.2isdirectedtosufferR.I.forthreeyearsandtopay

fineofRs.25,000/andindefaultofpaymentoffineamount,accusedis directedtosufferR.I.forthreemonthsfortheoffencepunishableunder section109ofIPCforabettingoffenceunderSection13(1)(e)r/w13(2) ofPreventionofCorruptionAct,1988. 5. 6. Boththeaccusedareonbail.Theirbailbondsstandcancelled. ArticlemarkedasX,Y,ZColly,Z1,Z2Colly,Z3&Z4arethe

copiesofdocumentsandphotographsthosearenowbecomeworthlessbe destroyedafterappealperiodisover. 7. Setoffbegiventoboththeaccused,ifany,theywereincustody,

aftertheirarrestundersection428ofCodeofCriminalProcedure. (Judgmentdictatedandpronouncedinopencourt)

Date:11/07/2013. Dictatedon Signedon : :

11.07.2013 11.07.2013 19.07.2013

(V .A.DAULATABADKAR) Spl.Judge(underP .C.Act), Gr.Bombay

Transcribedon :

SPECIALCASE62of2005

108

JUDGMENT
INTHESPECIALCOURTFORGR.BOMBAY, ATBOMBAY EXHIBITNO.389A SPECIALCASENO.62OF2005 TheState (AntiCorruptionBureau,Mumbai videC.R.No.54/2000) VERSUS 1) 2) AjaykumarGyanchandJain A3,MavalFlat,MoledinaRoad, Camp,Pune411001 AnitaAjaykumarJain A3,MavalFlat,MoledinaRoad, Camp,Pune411001

..Complainant

..Accused

Appearance: Ld.SPPSmt.KalpanaChavanfortheState. Ld.AdvocateShri.ShingnapurkarfortheAccused. CORAM:H.H.TheSpecialJudge(UnderP .C.Act) SHRIV .A.DAULATABADKAR (CourtRoom.No.46) Dated:11.07.2013 OPERATIVEPARTOFJUDGMENT 1. Accused no. 1 Ajaykumar Gyanchand Jain is acquitted under

section 235 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence punishableundersection11ofPreventionofCorruptionAct1988. 2. Accused no. 1 Ajaykumar Gyanchand Jain and accused no. 2

SPECIALCASE62of2005

109

AnitaAjaykumarJain areherebyconvictedundersection235(2)ofCode ofCriminalProcedurefortheoffencepunishableundersection13(1)(e) r/w13(2)ofPreventionofCorruptionAct,1988. 3. Accusedno.1isdirectedtosufferR.I.forthreeyearsandtopay

fineofRs.25,000/andindefaultofpaymentoffineamount,accusedis directedtosufferR.I.forthreemonthsfortheoffencepunishableunder section13(1)(e)r/w13(2)ofPreventionofCorruptionAct,1988. 4. Accusedno.2isdirectedtosufferR.I.forthreeyearsandtopay

fineofRs.25,000/andindefaultofpaymentoffineamount,accusedis directedtosufferR.I.forthreemonthsfortheoffencepunishableunder section109ofIPCforabettingoffenceundersection13(1)(e)r/w13(2) ofPreventionofCorruptionAct,1988. 5. 6. Boththeaccusedareonbail.Theirbailbondsstandcancelled. ArticlemarkedasX,Y,ZColly,Z1,Z2Colly,Z3&Z4arethe

copiesofdocumentsandphotographsthosearenowbecomeworthlessbe destroyedafterappealperiodisover. 7. Setoffbegiventoboththeaccused,ifany,theywereincustody,

aftertheirarrestundersection428ofCodeofCriminalProcedure. (Judgmentdictatedandpronouncedinopencourt)

SPECIALCASE62of2005 Date:11/07/2013.

110 (V .A.DAULATABADKAR) Spl.Judge(underP .C.Act), Gr.Bombay

SPECIALCASE62of2005

111