The State appealed against acquittal of a Sub Engineer charged with possessing assets disproportionate to income. The High Court found the trial court properly appreciated evidence showing separate incomes of the wife and children, applied Mallappa principles on appellate interference with acquittals, and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
ACQA No.64 of 2010
Judgment reserved on : 16.02.2024 Judgment delivered on : 08.05 .2024
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondent
For Appellant Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. GA For Respondent Mr. Devendra Pratap Singh, Advocate
Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
C A V Order
2
time, he was working as Sub Engineer. The Appellant by their sources received information that accused/respondent has accumulated disproportionate property from unknown sources during his service period. On receiving the aforesaid information, appellant constituted a trap party and obtained a search warrant from Competent Court. On 13.10.1992, raid was conducted in the presence of five witnesses in the residence of the accused/respondent and seized large quantity of movable and immovable property. An explanation was called from the accused/respondent but at investigation level it was not found satisfactory and also voilative of Rule 14 to 19 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1965. Hence, his explanation was declared to be rejected and a case U/S 13 (1) (e) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against the accused/respondent. After due investigation, charge sheet was filed against the respondent. The learned Trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record acquitted the respondent of the aforesaid charges, against which the present appeal has been filed.
3
documents.
4
disproportionate to his income amounting to Rs.9,20,653.32, as such a case was registered against him and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (e) read with Section 13 (2) of the Act, 1988. Before the learned Trial Court, the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses, whereas the defence examined 8 witnesses in his defence. The learned Trial Court found that the income earned by the respondent and his wife and children are different and the same was earned from various sources and it was not the income of the respondent. It further held that the wife of the respondent had different source of income and she was also paying income tax returns. Likewise, the children of the respondent had also different source of income and they were also paying income tax returns. Apart from it, the house which was purchased by the respondent was infact purchased by her wife from the money earned by her, which is evident from the documents filed by the defence. The respondent family was also getting rent of the house and were regularly paying income tax returns and their total income comes to Rs.9,29,050/- for the relevant period and the same cannot be said to be benami property as the documents in this regard were filed by the defence showing the transactions, however the allegation of disproportionate of property was Rs.9,20,653.32. The finding recorded by the learned Trial Court is based on the evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record.
5
“36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:-
(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive--inclusive of all vidence, oral and documentary;
(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;
(iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed;
(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal;
(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts;
(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.”
6
proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, which does not call for any interference by this Court.
Sd/Rajani Dubey Judge
Nirala
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court's acquittal under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) PC Act for disproportionate assets was perverse and liable to be reversed.
Whether the trial court erred in excluding the wife's and children's incomes from the accused's known sources of income.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of KarnatakaRelied on¶9
Criminal Appeal No 1162 of 2011
3 provisions across 2 enactments
State Of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Special Police Establishment, Lokayukta, Raipur
Purushottam Soni
Rajani Dubey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
