The prosecution’s case is that the accused/appellant was working as Chief Executive Engineer of Janpad Panchayat and was posted at various places between 1.9.2003 to 10.3.2011. The prosecuting agency obtained a search warrant from the competent Court on 8.3.2011 and effected search at four different places at a time on 10.3.2011.
According to the prosecution, the check period starts from 1.9.2003 and ends on 10.3.2011. During this period, the appellant acquired properties of Rs.75,43,891/- which is unexplained earnings of the appellant. Resultantly, against the appellant, a charge sheet was filed and accordingly, charges were framed by the trial Court under Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act which was denied by him and he pleaded for trial.
The accused was convicted post-trial and he preferred an appeal against the same.
N K Shukla for the appellant, submitted that “the judgement of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The prosecution did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There is no cogent evidence available against the appellant to connect him with the crime in question.”
It was further submitted that, “the appellant is an employee of Panchayat Department but the sanction for prosecution was given by the Additional Secretary, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Law & Legislative Department, which is not proper.”
Vimlesh Bajpai, on behalf of the state placed reliance on the impugned judgement and submitted that, “the Special Judge is absolutely justified in holding that the appellant possessed properties which are disproportionate to his valid known source of income and therefore, the present appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed.”
The Single Bench of Justice Rajani Dubey opined that, “the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the appellant possessed properties disproportionate to his known source of income.” and set aside the conviction order and sentence. The seized properties, if any, were also directed to be returned to the appellant.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
