Union of India Vs Jagmohan Jain

Jagmohan Jain, S/o Nand Kishore Jain, aged about 51 years, Chief Fire Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, R/o Block No.27, Plot No.2, Gurudwara Road, Nehru Nagar (W), Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

¶10

---- Respondents

¶11

For Applicant/UoI : Mr. Vaibhav Goverdhan, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Advocate.

¶12

Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey

¶13

Judgment on Board

¶14

15/06/2026

¶15

Heard on admission.

¶16

The present CRMP has been filed by the Union of India

¶17

2

¶18

seeking leave to appeal under Section 378 (2) of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 assailing the judgment and order dated 03.12.2008 passed by learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No.53/2004 acquitting the accused/respondent of the charge punishale under Section 13(1) (e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶19

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused/respondent Jagmohan was employed as the Chief Fire Officer at Bhilai Steel Plant. During the check period from August 1994 to August 2002, the total income of the accused/respondent from all known sources amounted to Rs.31,94,551/-. During the said period, the expenditure incurred by the accused/respondent and his family members was Rs.13,19,930/-. It was further found that the movable and immovable assets in the possession of the accused/respondent, either in his own name or in the names of his family members, were valued at Rs.44,21,058/-. Upon receipt of information through reliable sources, the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Jabalpur, registered a FIR (Ex.P/111) against the accused and took up the matter for investigation. Prior to August 1994, the accused/respondent possessed assets worth only

¶20

3

¶21

Rs.1,84,467/-. During the course of investigation, it was found that, having regard to all his known sources of income, the accused/respondent had acquired disproportionate assets amounting to Rs.23,61,970/- during the period from August 1994 to August 2002. During the investigation, the accused/respondent failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation regarding the said disproportionate assets. Thus, it was alleged that the accused/respondent had acquired movable and immovable assets disproportionate to his known sources of income during the period from August 1994 to August 2002. The Investigating Officer, after seizing the necessary documents and recording the statements of the relevant witnesses during the investigation, and having found sufficient evidence of the offence, filed a charge-sheet before the Court on 28.06.2004 for the offence punishable under Section 13(1) (e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 followed by framing of charge by the learned Trial Court accordingly.

¶22

So as to hold the accused/respondent guilty, the prosecution has examined 16 witnesses. Statement of the accused/respondent was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing

¶23

4

¶24

against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.

¶25

The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record has acquitted the accused/respondent as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.

¶26

Learned counsel for the applicant/Union of India submits that the evidence collected by the prosecution as well as the deposition of prosecution witnesses tendered before the learned Trial Court was sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt to convict the accused/respondent for the offence under Section 13(1)9e) read with Section 13 (2) of the P.C. Act. The learned Trial Court has committed grave error apparent on the face of the record by misappreciating the evidence tendered by the prosecution and by accepting the defense of the accused/respondent which was not supported by any admissible evidence. Learned counsel also submits that the impugned judgment of acquittal is contrary to law and results in severe miscarriage of justice, therefore, the same deserves to be set aside and this Court please to grant leave to appeal in terms of Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. for challenging the impugned judgment of acquittal dated

¶27

5

¶28

03.12.2008 passed in Special Criminal Case No.53/2004 by the Special Judge, Raipur.

¶29

On the other hand, learned counsel for accused/respondent supporting the impugned judgment of acquittal submits that the learned Trial Court minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence and rightly calculated the income of accused/respondent in paras 33 to 43 from the check period and before check period & has rightly found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment of acquittal is well merited, therefore, the instant application as well as appeal being without any merit is liable to be dismissed.

¶30

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶31

It is apparent from the statement of prosecution witnesses and statement of accused recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that father of accused/respondent was residing with him who was receiving pension from his job. The defence of the accused/respondent was that he has performed 03 marriages and most of the property, which was calculated by the prosecution, is his gifted property and Streedhan of his wife.

¶32

A perusal of the testimony of the Investigating Officer, M.M.

¶33

6

¶34

Deshpande (PW-16), particularly paragraph 9 of his crossexamination, reveals that he had no knowledge that the accused/respondent had entered service in Bhilai Steel Plant as an Assistant Manager in the year 1983, nor was he aware of the accused's initial basic pay. The witness further admitted that he could not state what gifts had been received by the accused/respondent at the time of his first, second and third marriages. Significantly, he also admitted that during the investigation no explanation was sought from the accused/respondent regarding the source of funds for the jewellery and other assets attributed to him. These admissions indicate that certain relevant aspects pertaining to the assets and financial resources of the accused/respondent were not duly investigated.

¶35

The learned Trial Court minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence and calculated income of accused/respondent before and during the check period. The learned Trial Court also took into consideration relevant circumstances, including the fact that the accused's father resided with him and that the accused had solemnized three marriages. Upon such evaluation, it rightly held that the prosecution had failed to establish possession of disproportionate assets beyond reasonable doubt. I do not

¶36

7

¶37

find any illegality in the order impugned acquitting the respondent. Furthermore, in case of appeal against the acquittal the scope is very limited and interference can only be made if finding recorded by the trial Court is highly perverse or arrived at by ignoring the relevant material and considering the irrelevant ones. In the present case, no such circumstance is there warranting interference by this Court.

¶38

Accordingly, the CRMP preferred by the Union of India/applicant is bereft of any substance and, therefore, the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself leading to refusal of leave to appeal as sought for by the Union of India.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

(Rajani Dubey) JUDGE

¶41

Digitally signed byVIJAY BHARATRAOpekde PEKDE Date: 2026.06.17 11:35:37 +0530

Union of India v. Jagmohan Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Jagmohan Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shashikala Bafana Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Narayan Prasad Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramnarayan Pathak Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

D. K. Rao Vs Ramkishore Kaushik

M/s Gowthami Infratech Private Limited Vs M/s Surya Wires Pvt. Ltd.

Union of India Vs Jagmohan Jain