Allowed

Umesh Kumar Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC16 Jun 2023CRA/53/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal against conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court held that the trial court erred in failing to account for the appellant's wife's and son's incomes, unexplained assets which were streedhan or gifts, and improper sanction calculation, leading to dismissal of the disproportionate assets charge.

What did the court decide?

Appellant acquitted; conviction set aside; bail bonds discharged.

Umesh Kumar Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Corruption | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

AFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Criminal Appeal No.53 of 2019

¶5

Judgment Reserved on : 27/04/2023 Judgment Delivered on :16/06/2023

¶6

Umesh Kumar Mishra, S/o Late Shri Brijbhushan Mishra, aged about 57 years, Sanitary Inspector, presently posted as Health OfÏcer, Nagar Palie Nigam, Bhilai, District Durg, hhhattisgarhgZ

¶7

---- Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of hhhattisgarh, Through : Superintendent of Police, Anticorruption Bureau, Raipur, hhhattisgarhgZ

¶10

---- Respondent

¶11

For Appellant : Shri TgZKgZ Jha, Shri Goutam Khetrapal and Shri Sumit Singh Rathore, Advocates For State/Respondent : MsgZ Shivali Dubey, Panel Lawyer

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel CAV Judgment

¶13

1gZ This appeal has been preferred by the accused/appellant under Section 374(2) of hrgZPgZhgZ being aggrieved by the judgment dated 22gZ12gZ2018 passed by the Special Judge under the Prevention of horruption Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Ph Act'), District Durg (hgZGgZ) in Special Sessions Trial NogZ01/2014, whereby the appellant has been

¶14

¶15

convicted under Section 13(1)(e)/13(2) of the Ph Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fne of RsgZ5,000/-, in default of payment of fne, additional RgZIgZ for 3 monthsgZ

¶16

2gZ hase of the prosecution, in brief, is that appellant was initially appointed as Sanitary Inspector by Nagar Nigam Ambieapur and subsequently, he was promoted as hhief Sanitary Inspector/ Incharge hhief Municipal OfÏcer, Nagar Nigam BhilaigZ On 27gZ11gZ2010, a trap was laid in demand of bribery case against the appellantgZ The said case was registered as FIR NogZ54/2010 under Section 7, 13(1)(D), 13(2) of the Ph ActgZ During course of trap, it was noticed that the appellant has earned disproportionate assets, so search was conducted and inventory of articles found in the residential premises of the appellant and certain documents pertaining to movable and immovable properties were also seizedgZ Ornaments amounting to RsgZ2,22,260/- and cash of RsgZ81,000/- were also seized from the residentgZ During course of investigation, ornaments amounting to RsgZ4,08,687/- and cash of RsgZ6,50,000/- were also seized from the loceergZ

¶17

3gZ After completion of investigation and obtaining necessary sanction required under the Act, a charge-sheet was fled before the competent hourt calculating the income and expenditure of the appellant taeing the chece period from 01gZ02gZ2002 to 27gZ11gZ2010gZ According to the case of prosecution the total income of the appellant was assessed during chece period to a tune of

¶18

¶19

RsgZ19,87,813/- and expenditure was assessed to a tune of RsgZ64,14,863/-gZ Thus, the amount disproportionate to the enown source of income of the appellant was assessed to a tune of RsgZ44,27,050/-gZ After fling of the charge-sheet, learned Special Judge framed charges against the appellant for the ofence punishable under Section 13(1)(e)/13(2) of the Ph ActgZ

¶20

4gZ So as to hold the appellant guilty, prosecution has examined 8 witnesses in support of its casegZ Statement of the appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the hrgZPgZhgZ in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the casegZ The appellant examined as many as 13 witnesses in his defence including himself as DW-13gZ

¶21

5gZ While convicting the appellant vide judgment impugned learned Special Judge has come to the conclusion that during the chece period, income of the appellant was to the tune of RsgZ42,56,050/whereas the total expenditure for the aforesaid period comes to RsgZ63,80,417/- and thus, according to the hourt below, the appellant was found in possession of the assets disproportionate to his enown source of income to the tune of RsgZ21,23,158/- and for this amount, he has failed to prove his casegZ

¶22

6gZ Learned hounsel for the appellant submitted that the raid was conducted on 27gZ11gZ2010gZ Relating to the ofence punishable under Section 7 of the Ph Act, on the said date, inventory (ExgZP-4) was

¶23

¶24

prepared by SmtgZ Meena hhoudhary, Inspector (PW-7) and an unnumbered Dehati Nalishi (ExgZP-164) was recorded on 14gZ12gZ2010 and as per statement of this witness, she was authorised to investigate the matter by the Superintendent of Police on 06gZ12gZ2010gZ As this witness was authorised on 06gZ12gZ2010, prior to 06gZ12gZ2010, the entire investigation which was conducted by her, was done without any authorisation and on this ground only, the entire case of prosecution failsgZ In this case, the sanction for prosecution was given by the Mayor-in-houncilgZ AgZKgZ Haldhar (PW-5), hommissioner Nagar Nigam, Ambieapur has admitted the fact that at the time of incident, the appellant was posted as hhief Nagar Panchayat OfÏcer, Nagar Panchayat Utai, District DurggZ This witness has further admitted that at the time of incident, the person holding the post of hhief Nagar Panchayat OfÏcer can be removed/suspended by the State Government onlygZ Thus, the State Government is only authorised to give sanction for prosecutiongZ The sanction for prosecution given by the Mayor-in-houncil is not a valid sanctiongZ

¶25

7gZ It is further argued by the counsel for the appellant that from the evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as from the defence, it is established that the mother of the appellant namely Shobha Devi (DW-11) was a government servant and after her retirement she was getting monthly pensiongZ There is sufÏcient evidence available on record which shows that she used to reside with the appellantgZ She had sold her old ornaments and the amount which she received after

¶26

¶27

selling, was given by her to her daughter-in-law igZegZ wife of the appellant SmtgZ Sushma Mishra (DW-12)gZ There is also evidence available which shows that cash of RsgZ8,00,000/- was also given by her to the wife of the appellant which was eept in the loceer and some amount was eept in the housegZ She also used to fle income tax return on regular basisgZ But, the hourt below has not considered this aspectgZ

¶28

8gZ It is further argued by learned hounsel for the appellant that from the material available on record, it is also established that wife of the appellant namely SmtgZ Sushma Mishra (DW-12) was holding a degree in music and woreing as a music teacher giving tuition to the studentsgZ This aspect has also been not considered by the hourt belowgZ It is further stated by learned hounsel for the appellant that son of the appellant was also woreing and was getting fxed income but this aspect has also been not consideredgZ

¶29

9gZ It is further argued that from the evidence available on record, the washing machine amounting RsgZ6,000/-, sofa set, dining table, chair set amounting to RsgZ55,000/- and a fridge worth RsgZ22,000/- were received by the appellant as gift, but the hourt below has not considered this aspect alsogZ

¶30

10gZ Lastly, it is submitted that the ornaments amounting to RsgZ2,22,260/(recovered from house) and ornaments amounting to RsgZ4,08,687/(recovered from loceer) were the ornaments which were received by

¶31

¶32

the wife of the appellant as gift at the time of her marriage and also after the marriage and the said ornaments were 'streedhan' but the hourt below did not consider this aspect alsogZ

¶33

11gZ Learned hounsel appearing for the State supported the impugned judgment passed by the Trial hourt and submitted that after considering the entire material available on record, the Trial hourt has rightly convicted the appellantgZ

¶34

12gZ I have heard Learned hounsel appearing for the parties, perused the record of the hourt below as well as statements of the witnesses and documents relied by both the parties with due caregZ

¶35

13gZ With regard to the investigation of the case which was conducted by SmtgZ Meena hhoudhary (PW-7), Inspector is concerned, it is not in dispute that the trap was conducted on 27gZ11gZ2010 and inventory and other seizures were made on 27gZ11gZ2010 itselfgZ In her hourt statement she deposed that she was authorised for investigation by Superintendent of Police vide letter dated 06gZ12gZ2010 (ExgZP-163) and, therefore, on 14gZ12gZ2010, she registered an unnumbered Dehati Nalishi (ExgZP-164)gZ Thereafter, she carried out and completed the further investigationgZ On perusal of the authorisation letter (ExgZP163) it is clear that SmtgZ Meena hhoudhary (PW-7) was duly authorised by the Superintendent of PolicegZ Though, prior to that on the date of trap itself, inventory was prepared, what prejudice has been caused to the appellant has not been pointed out by counsel for the appellantgZ In the case of State Inspector of Police v. Surya Sankaram Karri reported in (2006) 7 SCC 172, dealing with the

¶36

¶37

issue, it is held by the Supreme hourt that only on the basis of illegal investigation, proceeding may not be quashed unless miscarriage of justice is showngZ Paragraph 21 of the said judgment reads as under:

¶38

“It is true that only on the basis of the illegal investigation a proceeding may not be quashed unless miscarriage of justice is shown, but, in this case, as we have noticed hereinbefore, the respondent had sufered miscarriage of justice as the investigation mady by PW 41 was not fairgZ”

¶39

In the case in hand, SmtgZ Meena hhoudhary (PW-7) was authorised for investigation on 06gZ12gZ2010 igZegZ after maeing inventory and seizure memos but learned hounsel for the appellant have not pointed out any ground on the basis of which it can be said that miscarriage of justice has been shown or prejudice has been caused to the appellantgZ

¶40

14gZ With regard to the sanction for prosecution which was given by the Mayor-in-houncil vide ExgZP-10, from the admission made by AgZKgZHaldhar (PW-5), it is clear that at the time of incident, appellant was posted as hhief Nagar Panchayat OfÏcer at Nagar Panchayat UtaigZ It was further admitted by this witness that only State Government has the authority to appoint or remove/terminate the hhief Nagar Panchyat OfÏcergZ He further admitted the fact that in the present case, the State Government has not given any direction to the Mayor-in-houncil to give sanction for prosecution against the appellantgZ In paragraph 11 of his cross-examination, this witness has further admitted that on the date of incident, the appellant was

¶41

¶42

posted as hhief Nagar Panchayat OfÏcer, therefore, the State Government has issued the suspension order of the appellantgZ From the above admissions made by this witness, it is clear that on the date of incident, the appellant was posted as hhief Nagar Panchayat OfÏcer and only the State Government was authorised for appointment or removal of the said post and the State Government has also issued suspension order of the appellantgZ Therefore, in the considered view of this hourt, the competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution in this case was the State Government and not the Mayor-in-houncilgZ

¶43

15gZ Dealing with the issue relating to sanction for prosecution in the case of Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka reported in (2015) 14 SCC 186 the Supreme hourt observed as follows:

¶44

“ 23.2. A careful reading of sub-section (3) to Section 19 would show that the same interdicts reversal or alteration of any fnding, sentence or order passed by a Special Judge, on the ground that the sanction order sufers from an error, omission or irregularity, unless of course the court before whom such fnding, sentence or order is challenged in appeal or revision is of the opinion that a failure of justice has occurred by reason of such error, omission or irregularitygZ Sub-section (3), in other words, simply forbids interference with an order passed by the Special Judge in appeal, confrmation or revisional proceedings on the ground that the sanction is bad save and except, in cases where the appellate or revisional court fnds that failure of justice has occurred by such invaliditygZ What is noteworthy is that sub-section (3) has no application to proceedings before the Special Judge,

¶45

¶46

who is free to pass an order discharging the accused, if he is of the opinion that a valid order sanctioning prosecution of the accused had not been produced as required under Section 19(1)gZ

¶47

23.3. Sub-section (3); in our opinion, postulates a prohibition against a higher court reversing an order passed by the Special Judge on the ground of any defect, omission or irregularity in the order of sanctiongZ It does not forbid a Special Judge from passing an order at whatever stage of the proceedings holding that the prosecution is not maintainable for want of a valid order sanctioning the samegZ

¶48

23.4. The language employed in sub-section (3) is, in our opinion, clear and unambiguousgZ This is, in our opinion, sufÏciently evident even from the language employed in sub-section (4) according to which the appellate or the revisional court shall, while examining whether the error, omission or irregularity in the sanction had occasioned in any failure of justice, have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at an early stagegZ SufÏce it to say, that a conjoint reading of subsection 19(3) and (4) leaves no manner of doubt that the said provisions envisage a challenge to the validity of the order of sanction or the validity of the proceedings including fnding, sentence or order passed by the Special Judge in appeal or revision before a higher court and not before the Special Judge trying the accusedgZ

¶49

23.5. The rationale underlying the provision obviously is that if the trial has proceeded to conclusion and resulted in a fnding or sentence, the same should not be lightly interfered with by the appellate or the revisional court simply because there was some omission, error or irregularity in the order sanctioning the prosecution

¶50

¶51

under Section 19(1)gZ Failure of justice is, what the appellate or revisional court would in such cases looe forgZ And while examining whether any such failure had indeed taeen place, the hourt concerned would also eeep in mind whether the objection touching the error, omission or irregularity in the sanction could or should have been raised at an earlier stage of the proceedings meaning thereby whether the same could and should have been raised at the trial stage instead of being urged in appeal or revisiongZ”

¶52

In the light of the above observation and on examination of the facts of the case, clearly shows that sanction was given by the Mayor-inhouncil, but the said fact was not raised before the Trial hourt by the appellantgZ This point has been raised for the frst time before this hourt at the appellate stagegZ hounsel for the appellant has not pointed out any ground which shows that on being given sanction for prosecution by the incompetent authority, failure of justice has occurredgZ

¶53

16gZ With regard to the income of the mother of the appellant igZegZ Shobha Devi (DW-11) is concerned, it is evident from the passbooes (ExgZD-76 to ExgZD-82) that after the death of her husband and after her retirement, she was getting monthly pension of RsgZ30,000/-gZ This witness has deposed that she sold her old ornaments of gold and silver to one Paraeh Jewellers worth RsgZ2,93,000/- and obtained the receipts (ExgZD-54 to ExgZD-63) which is duly corroborated by Rajesh Paraeh (DW-10)gZ But the hourt below did not consider this aspect because the appellant had not informed about this to his department, which is, according to this hourt, is erroneous fndinggZ

¶54

¶55

Ornaments were sold by the mother of the appellant, but appellant had not informed his department about thisgZ From the statements of defence witnesses as well as from the admissions made by the investigating ofÏcer SmtgZ Meena hhoudhary (PW-7), it is established that the mother of the appellant Shobha Devi (DW-11) used to reside with the appellantgZ The ration card available, corroborates this factgZ

¶56

17gZ Shobha Devi (DW-11) in her hourt statement has further deposed that after selling the jewellery amounting to RsgZ2,93,000/-, amount of RsgZ5,50,000/- received from her husband and RsgZ2,50,000/- her own income, she had given to her daughter-in-law SmtgZ Sushma Mishra (DW-12), wife of the appellantgZ Out of the said amount, some amount were spent by wife of the appellant, some cash were eept in the house and some cash were eept in the bane loceergZ This witness further deposed that some of her ornaments were also eept in the bane loceergZ Statement of this witness was duly corroborated by statement of SmtgZ Sushma Mishra (DW-12)gZ The above mentioned facts were duly informed by the appellant to his department vide ExgZD-39gZ From the statement of this witness, it is well established that she (mother of the appellant) was a government servant and after her retirement, she was getting monthly pension of RsgZ30,000/and she used to reside with the appellantgZ From the material available on record, it is also established that mother of the appellant had sold her ornaments and after getting the selling amount and other above mentioned amount, she had given to her daughter-in-law Sushma Mishra (DW-12) as a giftgZ

¶57

¶58

18gZ SmtgZ Sushma Mishra (DW-12) igZegZ wife of the appellant, who in her hourt statement has deposed that she obtained a degree/certifcate in the mastery of Sangeet Prabhaear in singing from Prayag Sangeet Samiti, AllahabadgZ In support, she has exhibited her maresheet as ExgZD-83 and her certifcate as ExgZD-84, which was also relied by the hourt belowgZ Thus, it is established that this witness was a music teacher and she had obtained a duly afÏliated certifcate from Prayag Sangeet Samiti, AllahabadgZ This witness further deposed that she has been taeing music classes for students since 1987 for which she used to get income of RsgZ7,500/- per monthgZ In this regard, she has submitted the receipt booe and register igZegZ Article D-1 to Article D-12gZ She also fled her income tax return from 2002-2003 to 20112012 (ExgZD-85 to ExgZD-90)gZ She has also fled the information given by the Income Tax OfÏcer regarding assessment of her income for the year 2006-2007, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 which is exhibited as ExgZP-154gZ The Trial hourt disbelieved the statement of this witness only on the ground that the students who were taught by this witness were not examined and the certifcates issued to the students were not produced by her, which is, according to this hourt is also perverse fndinggZ There is sufÏcient material available on record which shows that this witness used to give music lessons to the children for which she used to get feesgZ She also fled her income tax return wherein she had shown her incomegZ Therefore, recording of statement of the children who were taught, is not requiredgZ From the statement of this witness and from the documents submitted by her, it is well established that she was a music teacher and she

¶59

¶60

possessed a certifcate in this regard and she has been continuously taeing music classes for which she was getting income and she has been fling her income tax return alsogZ

¶61

19gZ The prosecution has seized ornaments amounting to RsgZ2,22,260/from the house of the appellant and ornaments amounting to RsgZ4,08,687/- from the loceergZ The prosecution and the hourt below have assumed the above said amounts as the expenditure of the appellantgZ SmtgZ Sushma Mishra (DW-12) has categorically stated in her statement that at the time of her marriage with the appellant, she got 12 'tola' gold ornaments, about 273 grams of silver ornaments and some other household itemsgZ The list of the said items were prepared which is exhibited as ExgZD-38gZ She further deposed that after her marriage also, she got about 10 'tola' of gold ornaments and about 30 ' tola' of silver ornaments as gift from her paternal housegZ The above statement of this witness was duly corroborated by the statement of Anil Kumar Tiwari (DW-6) who is brother of SmtgZ Sushma Mishra (DW-12), who prepared the document (ExgZD-74) which is a list of the gift items which were given to SmtgZ Sushma Mishra (DW-12) at the time of her marriage, but the hourt below disbelieved the statement of above witnesses and held that no bills were submitted by the witnesses with regard to the purchase of said ornaments, therefore, it was held that the above mentioned amounts are the expenditure of the appellantsgZ The above fnding recorded by the hourt below and also according to this hourt, is erroneousgZ Since, there is specifc statement of SmtgZ Sushma

¶62

¶63

Mishra (DW-12) which is corroborated by statement of her brother Anil Kumar Tiwari (DW-6), that at the time of her marriage and after the marriage also, ornaments of gold and silver were give to her (SmtgZ Sushma Mishra, DW-12)gZ As there is specifc statements of Anil Kumar Tiwari (DW-6) and SmtgZ Sushma Mishra (DW-12) which is duly corroborated by documents (ExgZD-74 and ExgZD-38), and the fact that prosecution has not produced any documents which shows that the said ornaments were purchased by the appellant, the entire expenditure on this head is required to be deleted from the expenditure chart and the said ornaments are said to be 'streedhan'.

¶64

20gZ With regard to the income of Aloe Mishra (DW-3), who is the son of the appellant is concerned, Aloe Mishra (DW-3) has categorically stated that from September, 2008 to March, 2011, he was woreing with SR Enterprises and getting monthly salary of RsgZ8,000/-gZ In this regard, he has submitted certifcates (ExgZD-68, ExgZD-69 and ExgZD-70)gZ This witness further submitted the documents igZegZ ExgZD-71 and ExgZD72 which is income tax return of year 2010-2011 and 2011-2012gZ The above statement of this witness was corroborated by Paneaj Rathi (DW-2) who was the owner of the SR Enterprises where Aloe Mishra (DW-3) was woreinggZ Inspite of mentioning of TIN number in the document (ExgZD-68), the Trial hourt disbelieved the statement of Paneaj Rathi (DW-2) and Aloe Mishra (DW-3), which is not in accordance with the material available on recordgZ The documents (ExgZD-68, ExgZD-69 and ExgZD-70) and the income tax return certifcates igZegZ ExgZD-71 and ExgZD-72, clearly shows that Aloe Mishra (DW-3) was

¶65

¶66

woreing with Paneaj Rathi (DW-2) and he was getting regular income from theregZ This witness also fled his income tax returngZ

¶67

21gZ From the statements of Arvind Kumar Jain (DW-1), SmtgZ Shobha Devi (DW-11) and SmtgZ Sushma Mishra (DW-12) and documents igZegZ ExgZD31, ExgZD-32, ExgZD-33, ExgZD-35 and ExgZD-50, it is established that Arvind Kumar Jain (DW-1) had gifted washing machine to SmtgZ Shobha Devi (DW-11) igZegZ mother of the appellant and oven to SmtgZ Sushma Mishra (DW-12) igZegZ wife of the appellantgZ SmtgZ Shobha Devi (DW-11) had purchased the sofa set, dinning table and an old fridge vide ExgZD-31, ExgZD-32 and ExgZD-35 and the same are mentioned in the inventorygZ

¶68

Conclusion:

¶69

22gZ From the above discussions, it is clear that SmtgZ Shobha Devi (DW-11) igZegZ mother of the appellant was a government servant and after her retirement she was getting RsgZ30,000/- as pensiongZ There is sufÏcient material available on record which shows that she used to reside with the appellantgZ She has also sold her old ornaments for RsgZ2,93,000/- and she was also having Rs . 5,50,000/- which she got from her husbandgZ She has gifted the said amount to her daughterin-law SmtgZ Sushma Mishra (DW-12)gZ It is further admitted that the bane loceer was in the joint name of the appellant and his wifegZ Thus, it is established that the cash which was seized from the loceer and from the house, was given by mother of the appellant to the wife of the appellant as giftgZ Therefore, it cannot be said that the seized cash were belonged to the appellantgZ There is also evidence available

¶70

¶71

which shows that the ornaments amounting to RsgZ2,22,260/- (seized from the house) and the ornaments amounting to RsgZ4,08,687/(seized from the loceer) are the ‘ streedhan’ of wife of the appellantgZ Therefore, these amounts are not taeen as the expenditure of the appellantgZ There is evidence which also shows that wife of the appellant SmtgZ Sushma Mishra (DW-12) was woreing as a music teacher for which she was getting regular income and she used to fle income tax return alsogZ Therefore, her income amounting to RsgZ9,56,375/- should be added in the income of the appellantgZ Lieewise, son of the appellant Aloe Mishra (DW-3) was also woreing with a company and was getting regular income and he also used to fle income tax returngZ Therefore, his income amounting to RsgZ2,87,265/- should be added in the income of the appellantgZ There is evidence available to show that the washing machine, sofa set and dinning table mentioned in the inventory are gifted items and were purchased by mother of the appellant, therefore, the amount of these items should be deducted from the expenditure head of the appellantgZ

¶72

23gZ On calculation of the above, igZegZ cash of RsgZ6,50,000/- received from loceer, RsgZ81,000/- received from house, ornaments amounting to RsgZ2,22,260/- seized from house, RsgZ4,08,687/- seized from the loceer, RsgZ61,000/- for purchase of washing machine, sofa set and dinning table, comes to RsgZ14,22,947/- and it should be deducted from the expenditure head of the appellantgZ Further, income of wife of the appellant igZegZ RsgZ9,56,375/- and income of son of the appellant

¶73

¶74

igZegZ RsgZ2,87,265/- total RsgZ12,43,640/- should be added in the income head of the appellantgZ

¶75

24gZ As stated above, after taeing into consideration the expenditures of the appellant, this hourt is of the view that the following expenditures are taeen in excess which are as under:

¶76

hash received from loceer	RsgZ6,50,000
hash received from house	RsgZ81,000
Ornaments from house (streedhan)	RsgZ2,22,260
Ornaments from loceer (streedhan)	RsgZ4,08,687
Washing machine (gift)	RsgZ6,000
Sofa set and dinning table (purchased by mother of appellant)	RsgZ55,000
Total	Rs.14,22,947

¶77

25gZ As the trial hourt has calculated the expenditure of the appellant to the tune of RsgZ63,80,417/- and after recalculating the same, there is excess expenditure of RsgZ14,22,947/- which should be deducted accordinglygZ Thus, the total expenditure of the appellant comes to RsgZ49,57,470/- (63,80,417-14,22,947)gZ The Trial hourt has assessed the income of the appellant to the tune of RsgZ42,56,050/-gZ On adding the income of the wife of the appellant and income of son of the appellant, total income of the appellant comes to RsgZ54,99,690/(42,56,050 + 9,56,375 + 2,87,265)gZ Now, the position is that no

¶78

¶79

disproportionate amount remainsgZ

¶80

26gZ Having thus analyzed the entire factual scenario, this hourt has no hesitation to note that neither the prosecution nor the hourt below has been able to prove the fact that the appellant was in possession of the assets disproportionate to his enown source of income prior to and during the chece periodgZ Therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section 13(1)(e)/13(2) of the Ph Act is not sustainablegZ

¶81

27gZ In conclusion, the appeal is allowedgZ Judgment impugned is hereby set asidegZ Appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against himgZ As he is already on bail, bail bonds furnished by him stand dischargedgZ

¶82

28gZ Record of the hourt below be sent bace along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary compliancegZ

¶83

Sd/(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

¶84

Praeash

Umesh Kumar Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Kumar Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radhehari Pandey Vs Sukhram

Asif Khan Vs Dr. Naushad Ali

Smt. Manti Sahu Vs Mahesh Ganjeer

Rajkumar Damani Vs State

Santosh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohammad Iliyas Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh