[ad_1]
Bangalore District Court
Karnataka Lokayuktha Ps vs K.R.Surendrarao on 28 April, 2025
1
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
IN THE COURT OF LXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE & THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR
TRYING OFFENCES UNDER THE PREVENTION OF
CORRUPTION ACT, AT BENGALURU CITY (CCH-78)
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL 2025
PRESENT:
Sri.PRAKASH NAYAK, B.A.(LAW), LL.B.
LXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE & LOKAYUKTHA SPECIAL JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY.
SPL. C.C.No. 92/2013
COMPLAINANT: State by Karnataka
Lokayuktha Police.
City Division, Bengaluru.
(Rep. by Mrs.Suneetha,
Public Prosecutor)
/VS/
ACCUSED: K.R.Surendra Rao,
S/o Late Ramu,
Aged about 73 years,
Dy.S.P., P.R.C.Cell, DG Office,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bengaluru.
(Now Retd.Superintendent
of Police,Bengaluru.)
R/at No.63, Chamundamma
Nilaya,III Phase, II Main,
2nd Cross,J.P.Nagar,
Bengaluru.
(Rep by Sri.P.N.Hegde.,
Advocate )
*****
2
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
TABULATION OF EVENTS
01. Date of commission of offence : 10-10-2008
02. Date of report of offences to
the Police Station (FIR date) : 21-10-2008
03. Date of arrest of accused : -
04. Date of release of accused
from JC : -
05. Name of the complainant : Lokayuktha
Police.
06. Nature of offence complained : U/S.Sec.13(1)
(e) R/w Sec. 13
13(2) of Prevention
of Corruption Act
1988.
07. Date of submission of
charge sheet : 27-05-2013
08. Date of commencement of
recording of evidence : 27-02-2020
09. Date of closing of evidence : 19-09-2024
10. Date of judgment : 28-04-2025
11. Opinion of the Judge in : Accused is
respect of the offences. acquitted.
*****
3
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
JUDGMENT
1. The concerned Police Inspector, Karnataka
Lokayuktha, City Division, Bengaluru i.e. CW.70
Sri.P.Narasimha Murthy has filed the charge sheet
against the accused for the offence punishable
under Secs. 13(1)(e) r/w Sec.13(2) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The factual matrix of the case on hand is that the
accused was appointed as Police Sub-Inspector on
20-10-1975 and he worked at various places in
different capacities and while he was working as a
Dy.S.P. at PRC Division, Chief Office at Nrupathunga
Road, Bengaluru, PW.2 Sri.Prasanna V.Raju gave a
requisition to Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta
along with Ex.P.2 Source Report dtd.10-10-2008
requesting the S.P. to permit them to register and
investigate the case on the allegation that the
accused has amassed the wealth disproportionate to
his known source of income.
3. In Ex.P.2 Source Report dtd.10-10-2008 submitted
4
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
by PW.2 Sri.Prasanna V. Raju, the assets,
expenditure and income of the accused and his
family members during the check period i.e. from
20-10-1975 till 22-10-2008 is mentioned as follows:
ASSETS - 2,85,00,000-00
Expenditure - 40,00,000-00
A+E - 3,25,00,000-00
Income - 60,00,000-00
DA - 2,65,00,000-00
Percentage - 441.65%
4. The materials on record reveals that on the basis of
Ex.P.2 Source Report, the S.P., Lokayukta,
Bengaluru City has authorized PW.6
Smt.Radhamani to register the case against the
accused and accordingly on 21-10-2008, the PW.6
registered Cr.No.74/2008 against the accused for
the offence punishable under Sec.13(1)(e) r/w
Sec.13(2) of the The Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 and she has submitted FIR to the Court. After
registration of the case, said PW.6 has conducted
search in the house of the accused and seized some
documents. Further, it is also the case of the
prosecution that PW.6 has secured search warrants
5
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
from the Court and conducted raid to the house of
the accused and office and other places related to
the accused on 22-10-2008 and on 23-10-2008.
The materials on record also reveals that
subsequently PW.7 Sri.K.Anjan Kumar further
conducted investigation and prepared final report
and thereafter, Pw.8 Sri.P.Narasimha Murthy
submitted charge sheet against the accused for the
offence punishable under Sec.13(1)(e) r/w Sec.13(2)
of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
5. As per the final report, the assets, expenditure and
income of the accused and his family members
during the above mentioned check period is as
mentioned below:
ASSETS - 55,55,963-92
Expenditure - 24,98,977-70
A+E - 80,54,941-62
Income - 47,89,194-85
DA - 32,65,746-77
Percentage - 68.19%
6. After taking cognizance of the offence, this Court has
issued summons to the accused, who put
6
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
appearance before the Court through his counsel
and subsequently, the accused was enlarged on bail.
Thereafter, as contemplated under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.
copy of charge sheet and its enclosures were
furnished to the accused.
7. After hearing both sides and considering the fact
that there exist prima-facie case and sufficient
grounds to proceed against the accused, the Court
has framed charge under Sec.13(1)(e) r/w Sec.13(2)
of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which
was read over to the accused, who pleaded not guilty
and claims to be tried.
8. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has
examined PWs.1 to 11 and got exhibited Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.62. Ex.P.7 is marked with consent of the
learned counsel for the accused. In view of filing of
application under Sec.294 of Cr.P.C. by the accused
and since the said application was allowed, the
prosecution has given up CW.5 to CW.7, CW.9 to
27, CW.29 to 57, CW.61 to 65.
7
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
9. The prosecution evidence in gist is described as
under:
Prosecution Charge Person Evidence Exhibits
witness No. Sheet examined regarding marked
witness No.PW.1 CW.66 Sri.T.N.Ravi According Ex.P.1 and
Prakash prosecution Ex.P.1(a)
sanction as Sanction
per Ex.P.1 order and
Signature
of the
witness
PW.2 CW. 1 Sri.Prasanna Preparation Ex.P.2 &
V. Raju of Ex.P.2 P.2(a)
Source Source
Report report and
Signature
of the
witness
PW.3 CW.2 Smt. Witness to Ex.P3,
Hemalatha Ex.P.5 and P.3(a) to
P.6 P.3(c),
Mahazars Ex.P.4(a)
& (b),
Ex.P.5(a) to
(d), Ex.P.6,
P.6(a) to (d)
PW.4 CW.8 Sri.G.Ganes Forwarding Ex.P.8,
h Rao of Ex.P.9 P.8(a), P.9,
valuation P.9(a)
report
PW.5 CW.28 Sri.Jayadev Forwarding Ex.P.10,
Prakash of Ex.P.11 P.10(a),
Report P.11.
regarding P.11(a) &
percapita (b)
monthly
expenditure
of the AGO
and family
of accused
PW.6 CW.67 Smt.H.R. Registration Ex.P.12
Radhamani of case, FIR,
conducting Ex.P.12(a)
mahazar, & (b),
8
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
seizure of Ex.P.13,
documents P.14,
and partly P.14(a),
conducting P.15,
investigation P.15(a),
Ex.P.5(e),
Ex.P.6(e)
and
Ex.P.16 to
P.44
PW.7 CW.67 Sri.K.Anjan Conducting Ex.P.45,
Kumar further P.45(a),
investigation P.10(b),
and P.46 to
preparation P.54 (a),
of final Ex.P.24(a)
report. & (b),
P.8(b) and
Ex.P.55 to
P.60
PW.8 CW.70 Sri.P.Narasi Submission Ex.P.61
mha Murthy of charge and P.61(a)
sheet
against
accused
PW.9 CW.68 Sri. Anil Receipt of Ex.P.62 &
Kumar.B. case papers 62(a)
from PW.6
and
subsequentl
y handing
over the
same to
PW.8
PW.10 Sri.K.C.Ven- Regarding Ex.P36 (a)
kata Ronappa Ex.P.36 fuel
expense
report
PW.11 Sri. Kamala- Presence at Ex. P6(c)
karan Shet the time of
Ex.P.6
mahazar
and about
valuing the
gold and
silver
articles
9
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
10. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the
statement of accused under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. was
recorded. The accused has denied the incriminating
evidence as appears against him and he has chosen
to adduce defence evidence and the accused himself
examined as DW.1 and through him Ex.D.2 to D.38
were got exhibited. The accused has also examined
two witnesses as DW.2 and DW.3 and through them
Ex.D.39 got exhibited. Ex.D.1 is marked on
confrontation to PW.7 during his cross-examination.
11. The defence evidence in gist is described as
under:
Sl. Witness Name Documents exhibited
No.
1. Sri.K.R.Surendra Rao, the Ex.D.2 to D.38
accused examined as DW.1
2. Dr.Mallikarjun A.S. Ex.D.29(a) & (d),
examined as DW.2 Ex.D.39 & D.39(a)
3. Sri.K.S.Sudeep
12. Heard both sides. On behalf of the accused,
the learned Counsel for the accused also filed
written arguments.
10
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
13. After analyzing the available oral and
documentary evidence on record and after hearing
the arguments on both sides, the points that would
arise for determination are:
1. Whether the prosecution has secured
the valid sanction to prosecute the
accused for the offence punishable
under Sec. 13(1)(e) r/w Sec.13(2) of
P.C.Act, 1988, as contemplated under
Sec.19 of the P.C. Act, 1988?
2. Whether the prosecution beyond
reasonable doubt proves that the
accused being the public servant
during the check period from 20-10-
1975 to 10-10-2008 was found in
possession of property worth
Rs.32,65,746.77 (68.19%)
disproportionate to his known source
of income, for which he could not
satisfactorily account and thereby, he
has committed an offence defined
under Sec.13(1)(e) punishable under
Sec.13(2) of P.C.Act, 1988?
3. If so, What order?
14. My answers to above points are as under:
POINT NO.1:- In the AFFIRMATIVE
POINT NO.2:- In the NEGATIVE
POINT NO.3:- As per the final order
for the following:
11
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
REASONS
15. POINT NO.1:- It is an undisputed fact that
accused was appointed as Police Sub-Inspector on
20-10-1975 and he worked at various places in
various capacities and on 22-10-2008, when the
Karnataka Lokayukta Police raided his house, he
was working as Dy.S.P. at PRC Division, Chief Office
at Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru. Admittedly, the
accused joined to service on 20-10-1975 and raid
was conducted on 22-10-2008 and the accused was
retired on 31-08-2013 and the Court has taken the
cognizance on 28-05-2013. These undisputed facts
clearly reveals that the accused was the public
servant as defined under Sec.2(c) of P.C.Act, 1988.
16. In this case, the accused has not seriously
challenged the validity of Ex.P.1 sanction order
issued by the competent authority. Before
considering the facts and evidence on record
pertaining to the validity of the sanction order issued
to prosecute the accused, this Court is of the
opinion that it is just and proper to refer the
12
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in
(2013)8 SCC 119 (State of Maharashtra through CBI
Vs. Mahesh G.Jain) in this regard. In the said
decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “the
adequacy of the material placed before the
sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the
Court as it does not sit in appeal over the
sanction order. An order of sanction should not
be construed in a pedantic manner and there
should not be a hyper technical approach to test
its validity. When there is an order of sanction
by the competent authority indicating the
application of mind, the same should not be
lightly dealt with. The flimsy technicalities
cannot be allowed to become tools in the hands
of the accused”.
17. Admittedly, it is for the prosecution to
establish that it has obtained a valid sanction as
contemplated under Sec.19 of the P.C.Act, 1988, so
as to prosecute the accused for the alleged offence.
The prosecution can prove the same by producing
13
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
the original sanction order, which contains facts
constituting the offence and grounds of satisfaction
and also by adducing the evidence of the author of
the sanction order. A valid sanction is a
prerequisite to taking of cognizance of enumerated
offences alleged to have been committed by a public
servant.
18. In the light of the above said settled principles
of law, now this Court has to examine the evidence
adduced by the prosecution in respect of the aspect
of validity of sanction order. The materials on record
reveals that in order to prove the factum of valid
sanction, in this case the prosecution has relied
upon the evidence of PW.1 Sri.T.N.Ravi Prakash and
Ex.P.1 the Sanction Order dtd.11-03-2013.
19. Said PW.1 Sri.T.N.Ravi Prakash in his
examination-in-chief has deposed that on behalf of
the Government he has issued Ex.P.1 Sanction
Order, to prosecute the accused in this case. He has
further deposed that in the letter dtd.15-11-2012
14
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
the ADGP Lokayukta wrote a request letter to the
Principal Secretary, Home Department with a
request to accord sanction to prosecute the accused
in this case and along with that letter he had sent
the certified copy of the FIR, Source Report, Search
Panchanamas, Assets and liabilities details and
schedule submitted by the accused. Further, along
with the said requisition, the ADGP, Lokayukta has
sent copies of 11 booklets.
20. PW.1 in his further examination-in-chief has
deposed that after receipt of the requisition and
documents, the Principal Secretary has referred the
matter to Police Services Section, Home Department,
Vidhana Soudha and after the verification of the file
by the concerned Section Officer, the file was placed
before him and after examining the report and
documents sent by ADGP, Lokayukta, he has
forwarded that file to Addl.Secretary, Home
Department, Police Services for his reference. He
has further deposed that after scrutiny from the
Home Department, the said file came back to him
15
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
and after verifying the opinion given by the Senior
Legal Officer, he has forwarded the file and the same
was subsequently placed before the Principal
Secretary, Home Department to accord sanction
from the Home Minister and after verifying the entire
file, the concerned Home Minister accorded sanction
to prosecute the accused for the offence alleged
under Sec.13(1)(e) r/w Sec.13(2) of P.C.Act and
thereafter, the file was sent to him through the
proper channel and the Addl. Secretary referred the
matter to him to accord sanction on behalf of the
Government as directed by the Home Minister and
accordingly, he has prepared draft sanction order,
which was approved by his Senior Officers and
thereafter, on 11-03-2013 he has issued Ex.P.1
Sanction Order on behalf of the Government in the
name of Governor of Karnataka under Sec.19 of
Karnataka Government Transaction of Business
Rules, 1977.
21. However, in the cross-examination made to
PW.1 by the Learned Counsel for the accused,
16
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
nothing favourable to the case of the accused is
elicited. PW.1 in his cross-examination has admitted
that in the sanction order, the representation given
by the accused is not mentioned. Further, he has
denied that the sanction was accorded only based
upon the report of the I.O. He has denied that
without verifying the documents carefully,
mechanically he has issued the sanction order and
there is no application of mind.
22. Relying upon aforesaid evidence on record, the
Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the
oral and documentary evidence available on record
clearly discloses that the competent authority has
accorded sanction after scrutinizing the materials
placed before it and hence, the sanction accorded is
valid and in accordance with law.
23. As mentioned above, the accused in this case
has not much disputed about validity of Ex.P.1
Sanction Order. The above discussed evidence of
PW.1 on record clearly reveals that the concerned
17
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
competent authority has verified the records
submitted before it and applied its mind and came
to the conclusion that there exists a prima-facie case
against the accused and only thereafter, PW.1 as
per the directions of Home Minister, issued Ex.P.1
Sanction Order on behalf of the Government. The
contents of Ex.P.1 Sanction Order and the oral
evidence of PW.1 and the materials on record
undoubtedly ex-facie demonstrate that the
sanctioning authority has applied its mind and it
has accorded the sanction only after going through
the relevant documents and the materials placed
before it.
24. It is an admitted fact that the Public Servant is
entitled to question the validity of the sanction at
any stage of the proceedings even at the appeal
stage, though the cognizance was taken by the Court
earlier on the basis of the said sanction. However, in
this case, the accused has evasively challenged the
validity of the sanction without substantiating the
same. Hence, the said contention of the accused
18
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
that Ex.P.1 sanction was accorded without
considering the documents cannot be accepted.
Hence, taking in to consideration all these aspects,
this Court holds that the prosecution has proved
that it has secured valid sanction order as per
Ex.P.1 to prosecute the accused. Hence, with these
observations, the Court proceed to answer POINT
No.1 IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
25. POINT NO.2:- As already stated above, in
this case the prosecution has alleged that the
accused has committed offence punishable under
Sec.13(1)(e) r/w Sec.13(2) of P.C.Act, 1988, for
having amassed disproportionate assets to his
known source of income. Before considering the
merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it
is appropriate to refer the provisions of Sec.13(1)(e)
of The P.C.Act, which reads as under:
Sec.13(1):- A public servant is said to commit the
offence of criminal misconduct-
(a)……
(b)……
(c)……
(d)……
(e) If he or any person on his behalf, is in
possession or has, at any time during the
period of his office, been in possession for
which the public servant cannot
19
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013satisfactorily account for pecuniary
resources or property disproportionate to
his known source of income.
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, rules or orders, for
the time being applicable to a public
servant (prior to 2018 Amendment).
26. The above said provision clearly reveals that
the prosecution must prove the following facts in
order to bring the case under Sec.13(1)(e) of the P.C.
Act, 1988:
(i) The accused is a public servant.
(ii) Nature and extent of the pecuniary resources
or property which were found in his possession,
(iii) What were his known source of income,
which is known to the prosecution,
(iv) Such resources or property found in the
possession of the accused, were disproportionate
to his known source of income.
If these ingredients are established, the offence
of criminal misconduct under Sec.13(1)(e) is
complete, unless the accused is able to account for
such resources or property. If these elements are
established by the prosecution, then, onus shifts on
the accused to satisfactorily account for his
possession of disproportionate asset. No doubt, the
20
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
extent and nature of burden of proof on the accused
is preponderance of probability. It is well settled
principle of law that onus to establish a particular
fact on the accused is not as heavy as on the
prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, it
suffice for the accused to offer an explanation in his
defence, which is reasonable and probable.
Therefore, the initial burden is on the prosecution to
establish the ingredients of the offence of the
criminal misconduct of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
27. Before taking into consideration the respective
contentions of the prosecution and the accused and
the facts revolving around this point No.2, the Court
opines that it is appropriate and necessary to state
in brief about some undisputed facts of the case,
which is evident from the materials placed before the
Court.
28. It is an undisputed fact that initially the
accused appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police on 20-
21
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
10-1975 and as on the date of conducting raid i.e.
22-10-2008, the accused was working as Dy.S.P. at
PRC Division, Chief Office at Nrupathunga Road,
Bengaluru and he was retired as S.P. on 31-08-
2013. Further, it is an admitted fact that the IO has
considered the check period as 20-10-1975 to 22-
10-2008. Further, it is an admitted fact that PW.2
Sri.Prasanna V. Raju, who has submitted Ex.P.2
Source Report on 10-10-2008 stating that the
assets, expenditure and income of the accused and
his family members during the check period is as
follows:
ASSETS - 2,85,00,000-00
Expenditure - 40,00,000-00
A+E - 3,25,00,000-00
Income - 60,00,000-00
DA - 2,65,00,000-00
Percentage - 441.65%
29. Admittedly, PW.7 Sri.K.Anjan Kumar, who in
his final report has stated the assets, expenditure
and income of the accused and his family members
during the check period is as follows:
22
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
ASSETS – 55,55,963-92
Expenditure – 24,98,977-70
A+E – 80,54,941-62
Income – 47,89,194-85
DA – 32,65,746-77
Percentage – 68.19%WITH REGARD TO COMPLIANCE OF SEC.17 OF
THE P.C.ACT, 1988
30. The Sec.17 of P.C.Act, 1988 envisages about
the persons authorized to investigate. The proviso
appended to Sec.17 of The P.C.Act, 1988
contemplates that an offence referred to in Clause(e)
of Sub-Section 1 of Sec.13 shall not be investigated
without the order of a Police Officer not below the
rank of a Superintendent of Police. Therefore, there
is a statutory requirement regarding authorization
by the Superintendent of Police in favour of an
Officer to enable him to carry out the investigation
in terms of Sec.17 of the P.C.Act, 1988.
31. In this case, the prosecution has placed on
record Ex.P.13, Ex.P.45, Ex.P.61, Ex.P.62 and
adduced evidence of PW.6 to PW. 9 to establish that
there is due compliance of Sec.17 of The P.C.Act,
23
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
1988. Ex.P.13 reveals that S.P., Karnataka
Lokayukta, Bengaluru City Division has authorized
PW.6 Smt.H.R.Radhamani to register the case and
investigate the case and Ex.P.45 reveals that PW.7
Sri.K.Anjan Kumar was authorized to further
conduct investigation in the case. Apart from this,
Ex.P.61 reveals that PW.8 Sri.P.Narasimha Murthy
was authorized to further investigate the case and
likewise, as per Ex.P.62 PW.9 Sri.V.Anil Kumar was
authorized by S.P., KLA, Bengaluru to conduct
further investigation in this case. In respect of
issuance of Ex.P.13, Ex.P.45, Ex.P.61 and Ex.P.62,
PW.6 to PW.9 in their evidence have deposed in
detail before the Court. In respect of authorization
issued to above said PW.6 to PW.9 by S.P., KLA,
Bengaluru, the accused has not questioned the
validity of said authorization issued in their favour
to investigate the case.
32. Admittedly in this case, in order to ascertain
the disproportionate assets held by the accused, the
prosecution has taken check period from 20-10-
24
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
1975 to 22-10-2008. In the final report, the IO has
mentioned the assets, income and expenditure of the
accused under different heads.
WITH REGARD TO ASSETS OF THE ACCUSED
33. The IO in his final report in the column of list
of assets of AGO and his family members has
mentioned item Nos.1 to 33, which were stated to be
acquired by the AGO and his family members
during the check period. Admittedly, the AGO has
disputed the value in respect of following assets i.e.
AI-1, AI-2, AFD-2, AJ-1, AJ-2, ASA-1, ASA-2 and
AHA-1 and not disputed the remaining assets. The
list of assets is as follows:
Sl. Assets Description of assets Value as per IO
No. Code
1. AI-1 Construction value of the 2nd floor Rs. 1,50,000-00
of the house No.116 of J.P.Nagar
2. AI-2 The purchase value and Rs. 80,000-00
construction value in respect of Rs.13,50,000-00
Site No.12 of Sanjay Gandhi
Nagar, Bellary
3. AI-3 Purchase value of Site situated at Rs. 5,72,400-00
Vishweshwaraiah Layout
4. AI-4 Purchjase value of Site No.43 Rs. 35,500-00
situated at Cantonment, Bellary
5. ABA-1 Bank Balance in A/c No.0000260 Rs. 1,90,074-00
of Sudha Co-operative Bank
6. ABA-2 Bank Balance in A/c No.0003776 Rs. 10,679-00
of Sudha Co-operative Bank
7. ABA-3 Bank Balance in A/c Rs. 61,110-00
No.54010341970 of SBM
8. ABA-4 Bank balance in A/c No.0004122 Rs. 1,006-00
25
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013of Sudha Co-operative bank
9. ABA-5 Bank balance in A/c No.0001965 Rs. 97,076-00
of Sudha Co-operative bank
10. ABA-6 Bank balance in A/c Rs. 31,502-00
No.029901505256 of ICICI bank
11. ABA-7 Bank balance in A/c Rs. 2,81,597-00
No.04482180002196 of Syndicate
Bank
12. ABA-8 Bank balance in A/c Rs. 39,426-00
No.0506101024366 of Canara
Bank
13. AFD-1 Amount in Fixed Deposit at SBM, Rs. 2,00,000-00
Bellary
14/ AFD-2 Amount in Fixed Deposit at SBM, Rs. 1,04,662-00
Bellary
15. APA-1 Amount in R.D. Account Rs. 18,000-00
16. APA-2 Amount in R.D. account Rs. 30,000-00
17. AS-1 The purchase value of the shares Rs. 1,300-00
18. AB-1 The purchase value of Bond from Rs. 3,600-00
Sardar Sarovar Nigan Ltd.
19. AB-2 The purchase value of UTI Bond Rs. 20,000-00
20. AB-3 The purchase value of UTI Bond Rs. 10,000-00
21. AV-1 The value of Honda Activa Vehicle Rs. 38,689-00
22. AV-2 The value of Bajaj Scooter Rs. 21,000-00
23. AV-3 The value of Luna Rs. 5,000-00
24. ALC-1 Cash found in the house during Rs. 53,000-00
search
25. AJ-1 Value of the gold found in the Rs. 10,26,000-00
house
26. AJ-2 Value of the gold found in the Rs. 1,14,000-00
locker of Sudha Co-operative
Bank
27. ASA-1 Value of the silver found in the Rs. 1,11,750-00
house
28. ASA-2 Value of the silver found in the Rs. 10,500-00
locker of Sudha Co-operative
Banki
29. AHA-1 Household articles found in the Rs. 8,07,200-00
house during search
30. ANSC-1 The payment made towards NSC Rs. 76,630-00
31. ADE-1 Amount deposited towards the Rs. 3,200-00
electricity
32. ADE-2 The amount deposited towards Rs. 110-00
electricity
33. AGC-1 Amount deposited towards Rs. 950-00
cooking gas connection
Total Rs. 55,55,963-00
34. As mentioned above, excluding the above said
AI-1, AI-2, AFD-2, AJ-1, AJ-2, ASA-1, ASA-2 and
AHA-1, the accused has not disputed the above
26
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013mentioned assets and its value as mentioned in the
Final Report by the IO. Therefore, this Court is of
the view that there is no necessity to appreciate and
analyze the available oral and documentary evidence
in detail regarding the above said admitted assets.
DISPUTED ASSETS
i) Asset Code .. AI-1, the construction value of
the
1st floor of the house No.116 of J.P.Nagar:
35. In the final report, the IO has stated that the
above mentioned property was acquired by the
accused through Release Deed executed by his
father late Ramu along with the ground floor of the
building. The IO has not considered the value of the
site as well as ground floor as the asset of the
accused. However, the IO has considered the value
of the 1st floor construction as asset of the accused
and he has considered the value of the construction
of 1st floor at Rs.1,50,000/-.
36. It is the contention of the accused that to prove
this fact, the prosecution has examined PW.4, who is
the Asst. Executive Engineer of Technical Wing of
27
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013Karnataka Lokayukta and the prosecution relies
upon his report Ex.P.9. It is also contended that
PW.4 in his cross-examination has clearly admitted
that at the time of conducting the inspection of the
above mentioned property, he was working at
Technical Wing of Lokayukta and hence, he is a
partisan witness and there is every likelihood of
inflating the value of the property. It is also argued
that admittedly, PW.4 has inspected the said
property in the absence of the accused and the
accused was not called upon and the accused was
not questioned to ascertain what are the materials
used by him in constructing the said house and
therefore, the evidence of PW.4 and his report Ex.P.9
cannot be accepted.
37. Apart from this, it is also argued on behalf of
the accused that on 26-03-1985, the accused has
addressed letter to his higher authorities and sought
permission to construct the 1 st floor of the building
at the cost of Rs.96,000/- and on 26-07-1985, the
department has accorded permission to him and
28
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013these correspondences are part of his APR. It is
further submitted on behalf of accused that the
accused has taken hand loan of Rs.25,000/- from
one R.Venkanna and Rs.37,000/- from his father
Ramu and he has intimated his department that the
remaining amount he will adjust from his savings
and even estimation of costs of the proposed
building was also sent to the department and he has
declared these facts in his assets and liability
statements for the year 1985-86 and hence, as per
the declaration made by the accused during the
undisputed point of time, he has spent total sum of
Rs.1,26,000/- for construction of the said building.
38. In addition to it, the Learned Counsel for the
accused also relied the cross-examination made to
PW.7 Sri.Anjan Kumar at para No.100 to 102,
wherein the IO has admitted all the above said facts
regarding intimation made by the accused to the
department and the permission obtained by AGO for
the construction of the house and it is argued that
there is no reason for the prosecution to discard the
29
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013defence of the accused and he has spent only
Rs.1,26,000/-, but not Rs.1,50,000/-. It is further
argued that since the said building construction was
made under the self supervision of the accused, as
admitted by PW.4 in his evidence, under such
circumstance, 20% of the construction costs has to
be reduced and then, the construction costs will be
around Rs.1,26,000/- only. Hence, it is submitted
that on the basis of this, Rs.24,000/- construction
costs needs to be deducted from Rs.1,50,000/- and
the construction value of the said house needs to be
considered at Rs.1,26,000/- only.
39. On the other hand, the learned Public
Prosecutor has submitted that there is no dispute as
to acquisition of said property by the accused and
the only dispute is with regard to the construction
costs of the 1st floor. It is further submitted that on
perusal of APRs of the accused, it shows that
estimation of construction was submitted by the
AGO in 1983-84 and permission came to him in the
year 1986 and the estimation in respect of the said
30
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013property is submitted prior to acquisition of said
property by AGO. In respect of the source of AGO
to construct the said property, it is argued that
admittedly, the basic pay of AGO at the time of
construction of the said property is Rs.720/- and
admittedly, except the AGO none of his family
members were earning at that point of time and
since there is no other source and no bank balance,
the contention of the accused that he has adjusted
the amount out of his savings is not at all believable.
40. The learned Public Prosecutor has further
submitted that though the AGO has stated that he
has availed hand loan, no documents and no
satisfactory evidence is adduced by the accused in
this regard and since no acceptable evidence is
produced by the accused in this regard, the said
defence of the accused cannot be considered. It is
further argued that the accused cannot claim 20%
reduction on the construction costs on the ground of
self supervision, because, at the time of the alleged
construction of the said house at JP Nagar, the
31
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013accused was working at Bellary and under such
circumstances, it cannot be said that the said
construction of the 1st floor of the said house No.116
of J.P.Nagar was done under the self supervision of
the accused. It is also submitted that PW.4, who is
the expert has made minimum valuation of the
property and he has considered the minimum SR
value prescribed by the Government in Ex.P.9 and to
rebut the said report of PW.4, the accused has not
produced any separate valuation report and in
respect of self supervision of construction, the
accused has not produced any evidence and hence,
all the said contentions of the accused is not
tenable.
41. The materials on record reveal that there is no
dispute about the acquisition of said property by the
accused under Relinquishment Deed dtd.08-06-
1984. Admittedly, the dispute is in respect of
construction value of 1st floor of the house No.116 of
J.P.Nagar. According to the IO, the construction
value of the 1st floor is Rs.1,50,000/-, whereas
32
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
according to the accused, it is Rs.1,26,000/- only.
Ex.P.17, the APRs. of the accused, particularly page
No.159 of Book No.2 reveals that, the accused has
addressed a letter to his higher authorities and
sought permission to construct 1st floor of the house
at the costs of Rs.96,000/- at Site No.116 and the
department has accorded permission to him on 26-
07-1985. Further, the statement of assets and
liabilities for the year 1985, reveals that the AGO
has mentioned the approximate value of the building
under construction at Rs.96,000/- and in the
liabilities column, he has stated that he has to pay
Rs.25,000/- to Sri.R.Venkanna and Rs.37,000/- to
late Sri.N.Ramu (Payable to Smt.Thayamma Ramu).
42. Admittedly, to contend that the above said
property is asset of the accused, the prosecution
much relies upon the evidence of PW.4 and Ex.P.8 &
P.9. PW.4 is the Technical Assistant of KLA,
Bengaluru, who in his examination-in-chief has
clearly stated the manner in which he has assessed
the construction value of 1st floor of the house and
33
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
through him, Ex.P.8 the covering letter and Ex.P.9
report is got marked. It is true that in his cross-
examination, PW.4 has admitted that he is working
at Technical Wing of KLA, Bengaluru. Merely,
because he is working at KLA, his evidence cannot
be discarded, since his evidence is supported with
Ex.P.9 report, which contains the manner in which
he has came to said conclusion as to construction
value of the 1st floor of the said house.
43. It is true that PW.7 Sri.Anjan Kumar, the IO in
his cross-examination at para No.102 and 103 has
admitted that he has not subjected the AGO for
interrogation during the course of his investigation
on the basis of Ex.P.9 report and he has admitted
that Ex.P.9 is silent regarding presence of the
accused at the time of valuation made by PW.4.
44. The accused in this case is examined as DW.1
and quite obviously in his examination-in-chief he
has stated that he has intimated his department
about the approximate construction costs of the 1 st
34
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
floor is Rs.1,26,000/- and in this regard, he has
handed over the documents to Lokayukta Police
during the investigation. However, in his cross-
examination made by the Learned Public Prosecutor,
at para No.31, DW.1 has deposed that prior to
constructing the 1st floor of the house, he has got
prepared the estimation and the said estimation was
prepared by an Engineer on the basis of S.R. rate
prevailing in the year 1983-84. At para No.32 of his
cross-examination, DW.1 has deposed that the said
estimation was prepared by one Mr.Anand in the
year 1985 or 1986 and it is undated and the same
was prepared on his request. He has also deposed
that page Nos.1769 to 1775 in File No.8 is pertaining
to estimation of construction of 1st floor of house
No.116. Admittedly, the said estimation is undated
and no where it is endorsed that at the request of
AGO, the same was prepared. Further, DW .1 has
admitted that he has not produced any documents
to show that the said construction was made under
his self supervision and also he has admitted that he
has not produced any receipts regarding purchase of
35
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
construction materials. However, he pleaded
ignorance that PW.4 Sri.Ganesh Rao has prepared
Ex.P.9 report on the basis of S.R.rate prevailing at
the time of construction of the said building.
45. During the course of arguments, the learned
Public Prosecutor by relying upon the evidence of
PW.4 argued that his evidence clearly reveals the
minimum costs of construction of the building is
Rs.1,50,000/- and there exists no reason to
disbelieve his evidence as to valuation of the
building made by him and though the accused has
claimed the costs of the construction of the building
at Rs.1,26,000/-, the accused has not placed any
materials before this Court to accept the same. On
the other hand, it is the contention of the accused
that, the construction costs is only Rs.1,26,000/- as
the accused has periodically informed his higher
authorities regarding the estimated construction
value of the house. On careful perusal of the
evidence of PW.4 and his report as per Ex.P.9, is
analyzed it clearly reveals the manner in which he
36
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
has came to the said conclusion as to the costs of
construction of the house.
46. On the other hand, the accused though
claimed the costs of construction is at
Rs.1,26,000/-, he has not placed any acceptable
materials before this Court and mere declaration in
APR in this regard is not sufficient. Apart from this,
the accused relies upon only the estimation
furnished prior to construction of the first floor and
no documents produced regarding the actual costs
incurred by the accused in construction of the said
building. The contention of the prosecution as to
costs of construction of the aforesaid 1 st floor of the
house is supported with the evidence of PW.4, who is
an expert and the accused has not placed any
materials in support of his said contention as to
costs of construction is only Rs.1,26,000/-.
Therefore, this Court holds that the prosecution has
succeeded in proving the costs of construction value
of the 1st floor of the house No.116 of J.P.Nagar is
Rs.1,50,000/- and the valuation made by the IO in
37
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
respect of this asset is proper and correct.
47. So far as the contention of the accused that
20% of the costs of construction to be reduced for
the reason of self supervision by him is concerned,
the Court opines that the said contention of the
accused is made without any basis. Admittedly, at
the time of said construction of the 1 st floor of the
said house in the year 1986, the accused was
working at Bellary and being a public servant, how
he can self supervise the construction of the 1 st floor
of the house at Bengaluru is not clearly established
and proved by the accused. Even DW.1 has clearly
admitted in his evidence that he is not in possession
of any documents to substantiate that the said
construction was made under his self supervision.
Hence, in the absence of acceptable evidence in this
regard, the said contention of the accused is hereby
negativated and accordingly, the contention of the
accused in respect of the above said disputed asset
code AI-1 is hereby negativated.
38
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
ii) ASSET CODE AI-2, the purchase value and
construction value of Site No.12 of Sanjay Gandhi
Nagar, Bellary:
48. The IO in his final report has stated that the
above said property was purchased by the accused
for a sale consideration of Rs.80,000/- and
subsequently the accused has constructed the
building in the said site by incurring Rs.13,50,000/-
and therefore the IO has taken both the said
amounts as assets of the accused.
49. The accused in this case has not disputed the
purchase value of the said site, but his objection is
in respect of the construction value as assessed by
the IO. It is the contention of the accused that the
costs of construction is only Rs.9,00,000/- and the
accused in his assets and liability statement for the
year 1998-99 has declared that he is going to
construct the building on the basis of the permission
accorded by the department on 31-03-1997 and the
approximate costs of the construction would be
Rs.7,50,000/- and the accused has revealed the
39
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
source of fund and in the year 1999-2000, the
accused has declared the completion of the
construction and declared the costs of construction
as Rs.9,00,000/-.
50. It is also submitted on behalf of the accused
that PW.4 is the expert, who has admitted in his
evidence that on the date of his inspection to the
said property he was working as an Assistant
Engineer in Technical Wing of Karnataka Lokayukta
and hence, there is every possibility of inflating the
costs of construction and hence, his report Ex.P.9
cannot be considered as conclusive one. In addition
to it, it is also argued on behalf of the accused that
PW.7 the IO in his cross-examination has admitted
that the accused has given intimation to his
department regarding permission obtained for
construction of the building and also declared in his
APR about the value of the construction is
Rs.9,00,000/-. Therefore, it is the submission of the
learned counsel for the accused that the value of the
construction is only Rs.9,00,000/- and the
40
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
difference amount of Rs.4,50,000/- needs to be
deducted from the asset of the accused.
51. On the other hand, the learned Public
Prosecutor has submitted that there is no dispute as
to purchase of said property by AGO and it is true
that the AGO in his assets and liabilities statement
has declared the approximate costs of construction
of the building. It is further argued on behalf of the
prosecution that the PW.4 is the expert, who has
visited the property and submitted Ex.P.9 report and
the expert has considered the minimum SR value
and the accused has not placed before the Court any
contra evidence and hence, the report of the expert
has to be accepted.
52. On careful perusal of the records, it reveals
that in order to prove the value of the construction
of the said building, the prosecution relies upon the
evidence of PW.4 Sri.G.Ganesh Rao, who is the
Assistant Executive Engineer of Technical Wing of
Karnataka Lokayukta and Ex.P.9 the valuation
41
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
report filed by him. It is true that PW.4 in his cross-
examination made by the Learned Counsel for the
accused has admitted that at the time of inspection
of the building he was working as an Assistant
Engineer in Technical Wing of Karnataka Lokayukta.
Further, the materials on record also reveals that in
Ex.P.17, the Assets and Liability Statement of the
Accused from page No.186 to 193 reveals that the
accused has intimated his department that he is
willing to purchase the above said property for
Rs.80,000/- and he has also stated about the source
of fund to purchase the said property and he has
also stated that the approximate costs of
construction is Rs.7,50,000/-. Further, the
accused in his assets and liabilities statement for
the year 2002-2003, at page No.193 of Ex.P.17 has
reported the department about the completion of the
construction of the building at the costs of
Rs.9,00,000/-.
53. PW.7, the IO in his cross-examination at para
Nos.103 to109 has clearly admitted that during the
42
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
course of investigation, he has considered Ex.P.9,
the valuation report prepared by PW.4 and he has
verified the APR of the accused, wherein the accused
has intimated his department about the
construction costs and regarding the purchase of
the site and source of fund.
54. As aforesaid, the accused in this case is
examined as DW.1 and quite obviously in his
examination-in-chief he has stated that he has
intimated his department about the approximate
construction costs of the said building is
Rs.9,00,000/- and in this regard, he has intimated
his department and the department has accorded
permission to him and in his APRs, he has declared
the source of fund. However, DW.1 in his cross-
examination made by the Learned Public Prosecutor,
at para No.44 to 49 has stated that he has
purchased the said property by using his salary,
amount in the savings account, amount collected
through rent, by selling shares and interest accrued
on FD, etc., and in this regard, he has stated in his
43
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
schedule as per Ex.D.15. He has denied that at the
time of purchase of the said property, he was not in
possession of Rs.80,000/- and he has purchased the
said property by illegal means.
55. DW.1 in his cross-examination has further
deposed that prior to constructing the said building,
he has got prepared the estimation and the said
estimation copy was sent to his higher authorities
and he is in possession of the acknowledgment for
submitted the copy of estimation. However, DW.1
himself has admitted that he has not produced the
said acknowledgment and estimation either before
this Court or to the IO along with his schedule. He
has admitted that he has not produced any
documents to show that the costs of construction of
the said building is only Rs.9,00,000/-. DW.1 has
also admitted that PW.4 Sri.G.Ganesh Rao has
visited the property and submitted report as per
Ex.P.9. He has also admitted that in his APR filed
for the year 1998-99, he has stated that the
construction of the building is not completed and it
44
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
is in progress and he has further admitted that in
his APR filed for the year 1999-2000, he has stated
that the construction of the building is completed.
He has also admitted that he has not got assessed
the value of the construction of the building by any
expert. He has denied that the Ex.P.9 report given
by PW.4 is proper and correct. However, he pleaded
ignorance that PW.4 Sri.Ganesh Rao has prepared
Ex.P.9 report on the basis of S.R.rate prevailing at
the time of construction of the said building.
56. During the course of arguments, the learned
Public Prosecutor by relying upon the evidence of
PW.4 argued that his evidence clearly reveals the
minimum costs of construction of the building is
Rs.13,50,000/- and there exists no reason to
disbelieve his evidence as to valuation of the
building made by him and though the accused has
claimed the costs of the construction of the building
at Rs9,00,000/-, the accused has not placed any
materials before this Court to accept the same. On
the other hand, it is the contention of the accused
45
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
that, the construction costs is only Rs.9,00,000/- as
the accused has periodically informed his higher
authorities regarding the estimated construction
value of the house.
57. On careful perusal of the evidence of PW.4 and
his report as per Ex.P.9, is analyzed it clearly reveals
the manner in which he has came to the said
conclusion as to the costs of construction of the
house. On the other hand, the accused though
claimed the costs of construction is at
Rs.9,00,000/-, he has not placed any acceptable
materials before this Court and mere declaration in
APR in this regard is not sufficient. Apart from this,
the accused relies upon only the estimation and no
documents produced regarding the actual costs
incurred by the accused in construction of the said
building. The contention of the prosecution as to
costs of construction of the aforesaid building of the
house is supported with the evidence of PW.4, who is
an expert and the accused has not placed any
materials in support of his said contention as to
46
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
costs of construction is only Rs.9,00,000/-.
Therefore, this Court holds that the prosecution has
succeeded in proving the costs of construction value
of the said building at Site No.12 of Sanjay Gandhi
Nagar, Bellary is Rs.13,50,000/- and the valuation
made by the IO in respect of this asset is proper and
correct. Hence, the contention made by accused in
this regard is negativated.
iii) ASSET CODE AFD-2 AMOUNT IN FIXED
DEPOSIT AT SBM, BELLARY.
58. The IO in his final report has stated that the
accused invested a sum of Rs.1,04,662/- in the fixed
deposit at SBM, in the name of his wife
Smt.Mohanmala on 08-11-2004 and therefore, he
has considered the said amount as one of the assets
of the accused. To substantiate this fact, the
prosecution has produced the details secured from
the said bank through PW.7, since the said
document is a Xerox copy, the same is not exhibited.
59. The materials on record clearly reveals that the
47
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
accused and his wife were holding the FD number
5/59 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and it is also an
undisputed fact that the accused and his wife stood
as sureties to the loan of Rs.95,338/- availed by one
Sri.K.R.Raghavendra from KSFC. Further, the
materials on record also reveals that the KSFC has
created the lien over the said FD number 5/59 and
when the loan transaction was still pending, the said
FD was matured and hence, the KSFC has requested
the SBM to renew the FD and accordingly, the
balance amount of Rs.1,04,662/- is reinvested and
the same is evident from Ex.D.27, the letter written
by the Branch Manager of SBM, Bazaar Branch,
Ballary to the accused.
60. The final report filed by the IO reveals that as
per AFD-1, the IO has already considered the said
initial FD amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as asset of the
accused and all these facts are clearly admitted by
PW.7 in his cross-examination made by the Learned
counsel for the accused at para No.110 to 112. Since
the initial FD amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was already
48
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
considered as asset of the accused, the re-
investment of Rs.1,04,662/- cannot be considered
as separate asset and it become duplication and
therefore, the above said amount of Rs.1,04,662/-
needs to be deducted from the assets of the accused
as calculated by the IO.
iv) ASSET CODE-AJ-1 AND AJ-2, VALUE OF THE
GOLD FOUND IN THE HOUSE OF THE ACCUSED
AND THE VALUE OF THE GOLD FOUND IN THE
LOCKER OF SUDHA CO-OPERATIVE BANK AND
ASSET CODE – ASA-1 AND ASA-2, VALUE OF THE
SILVER FOUND IN THE HOUSE AND LOCKER OF
SUDHA CO-OPERATIVE BANK
61. The final report submitted by the IO and the
evidence of IO reveals that during the course of the
search of the residence of the accused, gold
ornaments weighing 1026 gms. were found and the
goldsmith has assessed the value of the same as
Rs.10,26,000/-.
62. According to the IO, during the course of
search of locker of Sudha Co-operative Bank, gold
ornaments weighing 114 gms. were found and the
goldsmith has valued the same at Rs.1,14,000/-.
49
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
63. The IO in his final report has also stated that
when the residence of the accused was searched, the
accused is found in possession of 5.5 kg. Of silver
articles and its value is fixed at Rs.1,11,750/-.
64. The IO has also stated in his final report that
when the above said bank locker at Sudha Co-
operative bank was searched, the accused is found
in possession of 700 gms. of silver articles and the
value of the same is fixed at Rs.10,500-00.
65. In order to prove the above said allegations, the
prosecution is relying upon the search mahazars
marked as Ex.P.5 and P.6 and the prosecution also
relies upon the oral evidence of PW.3
Smt.Hemalatha and PW.11, Sri.Kamalakar Shet.
PW.3 Smt.Hemalatha in her oral testimony in detail
has stated that she has accompanied the IO with
other punch witnesses and in her presence, the IO
got examined the said gold and silver articles
through a goldsmith by name Sri.Gevar Chand and
he has weighed the said articles and the value of the
50
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
gold articles are considered at Rs.1,000/- per gram
and the value of the silver articles were considered
at Rs.15,000/- per Kg.
66. PW.11 Sri.Kamalakar Shet in his evidence
deposed before the Court that in the presence of
PW.6, the IO and the PW.3 and in the presence of
accused and his wife, he has weighed the gold
ornaments and silver articles found in the bank
locker and they found 114 gms. of gold ornaments
and 700 gms. of silver articles and in this regard
Ex.P.6 mahazar was prepared in his presence and
he has signed it. In his cross-examination, he has
admitted that he has weighed the golden ornaments
along with stones, beads, etc. and it is not accurate.
67. The manner of cross-examination made to the
prosecution witnesses in this regard by the Learned
counsel for the accused reveals that the accused is
not disputing the value fixed by the IO in respect of
above said golden ornaments and silver articles.
The accused is only contending that the IO has
51
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
wrongly considered the said golden ornaments and
silver articles as his assets.
68. In respect of this contention, the Learned
counsel for accused relies upon the assets and
liabilities statement for the year 2006-2007 of the
accused, more particularly at page No.198 to 203 of
Ex.P.17, wherein the accused has declared about
receipt of 869 gms. of gold ornaments by his wife
after the death of his mother-in-law. The accused
also relies upon the cross-examination of PW.7 at
para No.113 to 119 and cross-examination of PW.6
at para No.73. In addition to it, the accused relies
upon Ex.D.1, the MOU and relying upon the said
oral evidence and Ex.D.1 and Ex.P.17, it is argued
on behalf of the accused that the entire valuation
made in respect of above said golden ornaments and
silver articles as assets of the accused, needs to be
deducted.
69. On the other hand, the Learned Public
Prosecutor has submitted that the accused has not
52
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
proved Ex.D.1, which is undated and untitled. It is
also argued by the Learned Public Prosecutor that in
the APRs. nowhere the accused has in detail
mentioned the description and weight of each golden
ornaments and silver articles and the marriage of
the accused solemnized in the year 1981 and if at all
the accused has received the golden ornaments
weighing 22 Tholas (220 gms.), he ought to have
declared the same in the APR of 1981-82 and
admittedly, in the year 1981-82, the accused has
not filed APR and it creates a suspicion about the
explanation given by the accused regarding receipt
of said golden ornaments. The Learned Public
Prosecutor has also argued that even though an
entry is found at page No.164 and 165 of Ex.P.17
regarding receipt of 220 gms. of gold ornaments by
AGO, no details were furnished regarding
description of each ornaments. Apart from this, if at
all Ex.D.1 is came into existence in the year 2006 as
contended by the AGO, the said Ex.D.1 ought to
have been seized by IO either at residence of the
accused or his office, when the raid was conducted.
53
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
70. The Learned Public Prosecutor has also
submitted that the accused in his evidence has
stated that as per Ex.D.1, the ornaments of his
mother-in-law was given to his wife and his sister-
in-law, whereas the contents of Ex.D.1 reveals that
the same said to have been given to wife of the
accused and daughter of the accused, which means
that the accused is unaware about the contents of
Ex.D.1. It is also submitted on behalf of the
prosecution that the accused in his cross-
examination has admitted that Ex.D.1 was in his
possession and the same is produced only during
cross-examination of PW.7 and if at all the accused
is in possession of Ex.D.1, why he has not produced
the copy of the same to the IO along with the
schedule and why he has not stated about Ex.D.1 in
the schedule. It is also argued on behalf the
prosecution that the APRs of the accused
subsequent to the year 1999 does not possess
signature and seal of the department, which creates
a doubt and the accused has submitted his schedule
54
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
after more than a year from the date of raid
conducted to his residence and all these facts
creates a suspicion about the contention of the
accused and since Ex.D.1 is not proved by the
accused, the same cannot be considered for any
purpose.
71. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for
the accused has submitted that the accused has
clearly stated in his APRs. regarding receipt of
golden ornaments and silver articles and even copy
of Ex.D.1 was sent to the department at an
undisputed point of time and therefore, the above
said contentions of the Learned Public Prosecutor is
not tenable.
72. On perusal of the records, it reveals that it is
an undisputed fact that Ex.D.1 is undated and
produced at the time of cross-examination of PW.7
and got marked through PW.7 on confrontation.
Further, it is also an undisputed fact that in his
cross-examination the accused, who is examined as
55
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
DW.1 at para No.55 has clearly stated that at the
time of raid the concerned Lokayukta police have
not seized original copy of Ex.D.1 at his house and
he has further deposed that Ex.D.1 might have kept
at his house or office. It is also an admitted fact
that the said Ex.D.1 is not handed over by the
accused to the IO at the time of furnishing his
schedule. It is pertinent to note that Ex.P.17
particularly page No.198 to 203 reveals that the
accused has stated about the receipt of 860 gms. of
golden ornaments and 5 k.g. and 258 gms. of silver
articles by his wife after death of his mother-in-law
and copy of the said untitled document is also
furnished by AGO to his higher authorities at an
undisputed point of time. Ex.P.17 reveals that the
accused has intimated the concerned authorities
regarding receipt of aforesaid quantity of golden
ornaments and silver articles in his annual
statement of assets and liabilities. So far as non-
production of Ex.D.1 by the accused before the
cross-examination of PW.7 is concerned, the Court
opines that there is lacuna in the investigation itself.
56
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
Further, it is not the case of the prosecution that
Ex.D.1 was prepared, created by the accused after
conducting the raid at his residence. The Ex.P.17
reveals that the copy of Ex.D.1 was furnished to the
Asst. Inspector General of Police (Crime), Chief
Office, Bengaluru by the accused along with his APR
for the year 2006-2007. Hence, under the said
circumstance, the contention of the prosecution
regarding Ex.D.1 is not tenable.
73. Apart from this, it is relevant to note that prior
to amendment of Sec.13(1) of P.C.Act, 1988, the
term ‘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, rules or orders for the time
being applicable to a public servant. Admittedly,
subsequent to amendment of Sec.13(1) of P.C.Act,
1988, the term ‘known sources of income’ as per
explanation-2, means income received from any
lawful sources. Admittedly, this case is registered in
the year 2013 and the allegation made against the
57
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
accused is pertaining to the check period, which is
prior to the aforesaid amendment, which came into
effect from 26-07-2018. Hence, as mentioned above,
as per the unamended explanation of known sources
of income, if the AGO intimates the concerned
authority regarding receipt of income from any
lawful source, it is sufficient. In this case also, at an
undisputed point of time, the accused has intimated
his higher authorities regarding receipt of golden
ornaments weighing 860 gms. and silver articles
weighing 5.258gms. by his wife after death of her
mother. Hence, taking into consideration these facts
on record and for the reason that the copy of Ex.D.1
appears to have been furnished by the accused
along with his APR for the year 2006-2007, the
Court opines that the accused has properly declared
about the receipt of above said quantity of silver
articles and golden ornaments under Ex.D.1 and
hence, the explanation of the accused needs to be
accepted and the contention of the prosecution in
this regard requires to be negativated.
58
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
74. Further, in respect of 220gms. of golden
ornaments is concerned, admittedly Ex.P.17 page
No.153 onward reveals that in the APR submitted by
the accused for the year 1983 and onward discloses
that the accused has declared about the receipt of
220gms. of golden ornaments during his marriage.
The said declaration is made at an undisputed point
of time. Hence, the contention of the prosecution
that the said declaration does not consists minute
particulars regarding the description and weight of
each golden ornaments said to have been received
by the accused during his marriage, is not a tenable
contention. The rule mandates the public servant to
intimate the higher authorities regarding the
acquisition of any property, income and the manner
in which it was acquired. Admittedly, the total gold
found in the house and locker of the accused is
1140gms. and as per Ex.D.1 and Ex.P.17, the
accused has declared about 1089gms. of gold
(869+220). Further, PW.11 the goldsmith has
admitted in his cross-examination that there is a
chance of variation in weight of the golden
59
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
ornaments since he has weighed the said ornaments
along with stones and beads. The said evidence on
record clearly reveals that there is no conclusive
evidence on record regarding weight of each gold
articles. Hence, considering the evidence on record,
the Court holds that the value assessed by the IO
regarding the above said golden ornaments i.e.
Rs.10,26,000/- + Rs.1,14,000/- needs to be
deducted from the Assets of the accused.
75. Further, the evidence on record reveals that
the total silver found in possession of the accused
during raid is 7 k.g. and 450 gms. As discussed
above, as per Ex.D.1, as declared by the accused 5
kg. and 500 gms. of silver articles stated to be
received by wife of the accused and the said fact is
intimated by AGO to his higher authorities at an
undisputed point of time. Ex.P.5 and P.6 mahazars
discloses that remaining 2 kg. and 886 gms. of silver
articles were found at the house of the accused and
according to the IO, those silver articles are found to
be received by way of gift. PW.7, the IO in his cross-
60
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
examination at Para No.122 to 126 and PW.6
Smt.Radhamani in her cross-examination at para
No.71 have clearly deposed that 2 kgs. 886 gms. of
silver articles found to be the gifts and presents
received by the AGO and his family members. The
materials on record reveals that in this regard, the
Investigating Officers have not made any further
investigation and hence, under the said
circumstance, the said silver articles found in the
house of the accused cannot be treated as assets of
the accused and hence, Rs.1,11,750/- + 10,500/-
has to be deducted from the value of the assets of
the accused as assessed by the IO. Hence, in
respect of the above said golden ornaments and
silver articles, total Rs.12,62,250/- has to be
deducted from the assets of the accused as assessed
by the IO.
v) ASSET CODE AHA-1 HOUSEHOLD ARTICLES
FOUND IN THE HOUSE OF THE ACCUSED.
76. As per the final report, according to the IO, as
on the date of conducting raid, the accused is found
61
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
to be in possession of household articles and the IO
has ascertained the value of said household articles
as Rs.8,07,200/- and in this regard the IO has
mentioned the same in Ex.P.5 Mahazar. To
substantiate this aspect the prosecution relies upon
the evidence of PW.3 Smt.Hemalatha and Ex.P.5
Mahazar. Said PW.3 Smt.Hemalatha in her oral
testimony has clearly stated that during the search,
the IO has noticed the household articles and he has
noted down the details of the same in the mahazar
and after discussing with her and other punch
witnesses and the accused and his wife, the IO has
estimated the value of household articles and
mentioned the same in the mahazar. The
prosecution also relies upon the evidence of PW.6
Smt.H.R.Radhamani, who in her examination-in-
chief in detail mentioned the details of the
household articles found in the residence of the
accused.
77. However, it is the contention of the accused
that all the household articles as mentioned in
62
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
Ex.P.5 does not relate to the accused. According to
the accused, the house No.63 of J.P.Nagar, where
the accused was residing at the time of said raid,
was belonged to his brother-in-law by name
Mr.Uday and the said house was not considered as
asset of the accused for the said reason only. It is
also contended on behalf of the accused that no
investigation is made by the IO to differentiate the
household articles belonged to the accused and the
articles related to owner of the said house Mr.Uday.
The IO has wrongly considered all the household
articles found in the said house as asset of the
accused and PW.6 Smt.H.R.Radhamani has
admitted in her cross-examination that she has not
made any list of the movable household articles
which belonged to Mr.Uday and articles, which
belong to the accused. It is also argued that the IO
has not taken assistance of any expert to value the
cloths, electrical and electronic items, wooden
articles, etc. and hence, the contents of Ex.P.5
mahazar cannot be relied upon conclusively.
63
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
78. The Learned counsel for the accused has
further submitted that the accused in detail
explained the ownership of each items, sources of
each items and its value in his schedule No.14A at
page No.1870, which is marked as Ex.D.16. On the
other hand, the Learned Public Prosecutor has
submitted that any declaration or explanation said
to have been given by the accused along with his
schedule is only the self serving statement of the
accused and since the same is not supported with
documents, all the said contentions of the accused
in this regard is not tenable.
79. It is the specific contention of the accused that
the household articles mentioned in mahazar at
Sl.No.1, 10, 21, 22, 45, 47, 49, 82, 83, 84, 88, 95,
96, 116, 117, 128, 152, 154, 155, 160 and 173,
which is valuing total Rs.63,200/- belong to
Mr.N.Uday, who the brother-in-law of the accused
and in this regard along with the schedule, the
accused has also produced sworn affidavit of
Mr.Uday, which is in page No.1978 of schedule and
64
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
the IO has not cross-checked the said declarations
made by the accused and also not enquired Mr.Uday
and all these facts were admitted by PW.7, the IO in
his cross-examination at para No.131 and 132 and
hence, said value of Rs.63,200/- needs to be
deducted from the value.
80. The perusal of the materials on record reveals
that the IO in Ex.P.,5 mahazar has in detail
mentioned the household articles and its estimated
value. It is also an admitted fact that the accused
along with his schedule has furnished sworn
affidavit of Mr.Uday and contended that above said
household articles belonged to Mr.Uday. It is also
an admitted fact that the IO has not chosen to
cross-check the said contentions of the accused and
the IO has not made any efforts to interrogate said
Mr.Uday. Merely because, the IO has not enquired
Mr.Uday in this regard, the said declarations made
by the accused and Mr.Uday in respect of above said
household articles cannot be accepted. It is
because, any explanation given by the accused along
65
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
with the schedule is his statements only and the
said declarations made in the schedule is not
supported with any evidence. Being a part of
premier investigating agency, the IO ought to have
summoned Mr.Uday and the IO ought to have cross-
checked the declarations and the explanations given
by the accused in the schedule, which is admittedly
filed by the accused after more than a year from the
date of conducting the raid.
81. The evidence of PW.3, PW.6 and PW.7 and
Ex.P.5 mahazar on record reveals that the IO has
estimated the value of said household articles after
discussing with panch witnesses and the accused
and his wife. Even the value assessed by the IO in
respect of said household articles is very meager. It
is the onus upon the accused to substantiate that
the above said household articles are not belonged
to him, they actually belonged to Mr.Uday. It is the
defence of the accused and quite obviously, the
burden is upon the accused to prove the same and
admittedly, the accused has failed to substantiate
66
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
the same by adducing and producing required oral
and documentary evidence in this regard. Therefore,
in view of the absence of acceptable evidence to
substantiate the contentions of the accused in
respect of above mentioned household articles, the
Court opines that the valuation made by the IO in
respect of above said household articles (which is
claimed by accused as belonged to Mr.Uday) is
proper and correct and all the contentions of the
accused in this regard is hereby negativated.
82. The IO in Ex.P.5 mahazar has also mentioned
household articles at Sl.No.93, 97, 120, 157 and 158
and valued the same at Rs.13,500/-. According to
the accused, the above mentioned household articles
were received by him after death of his father and
hence, the aforementioned amount needs to be
deducted from the asset of the accused. Even
according to the accused, the said fact is admitted
by PW.7 in his cross-examination.
83. On the other hand, it is submitted by the
67
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
learned Public Prosecutor that in the APR filed by
the accused in the year 1989 only washing machine
is shown as the household article and subsequently,
no further details regarding possession of household
articles by the accused is found place in his APRs.
It is also argued that merely because the accused
has contended that the above said articles are
received by him after death of his father, the same
cannot be considered as the household articles not
part of the assets of the accused. It is an admitted
fact that the accused who is examined as DW.1 in
his examination-in-chief at para No.12 has stated
that the above said household articles were received
by him from his father. However, no documents
were produced by the accused to substantiate the
same and as rightly pointed out by the learned
Public Prosecutor, in the APRs. of the accused, no
where any entry in this regard is found. Hence, the
Court is of the opinion that the accused has failed to
prove his defence that the above said articles were
received by him after the death of his father and
accordingly, the said contention of the accused in
68
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
this regard is hereby negativated.
84. It is the contention of the accused that the
items mentioned in Ex.P.5 mahazar at Sl.Nos.5, 6,
14, 51, 90, 102, 104, 110, 125, 126, 130, 141, 147
and 181 valuing Rs.1,13,000/- are received by him
as gift and along with the schedule, the accused has
also produced the sworn affidavit of one Nagaraj
along with schedule in respect of Sl.No.147 and
hence, Rs.1,13,000/- needs to be deducted from the
assets. On the other hand, the learned Public
Prosecutor has submitted that the accused has
failed to substantiate the said defence and hence,
the said contention of the accused is not acceptable.
85. On perusal of the records, it reveals that the
accused has contended that the above said items
were received by him as gift. Admittedly, to
substantiate the same, the accused has not
produced any photographs and also not adduced
acceptable oral and documentary evidence. In
respect of the item mentioned at Sl.No.147 in Ex.P.5
69
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
i.e. Johny Walker Squach Blue Label Whiskey bottle,
the accused relies upon the sworn affidavit of one
Mr.Nagaraj at page No.1977 of the schedule of the
accused. Mere filing of affidavit of Mr.Nagaraj is not
sufficient to prove this aspect. When it is the
specific case of the accused that said item No.147 is
received by him as gift, the burden is upon him to
prove that aspect. It is true that the IO has not
enquired said Mr.Nagaraj in this regard. However,
the failure of the IO to interrogate said person does
not absolve the accused from proving his specific
defence. Further, it is also an admitted fact that
PW.7 the IO in his cross-examination at paras
No.133 to 135 has admitted that the accused has
given explanation in respect of above said household
articles including item described at Sl.No.147.
Merely because, the IO has admitted the said aspect,
it cannot be concluded that the accused has proved
the said defence. When the accused has specifically
contended that the above said household articles
were received by him from his relatives, well-wishers
and friends on various occasions, the burden is
70
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
upon him to substantiate the same by adducing
acceptable and relevant evidence and by producing
relevant and required documents. Since the accused
has failed to prove the above said aspects, the Court
is of the opinion that all the said contentions of the
accused is not at all acceptable and no deductions
can be made in the assets as valued by the IO.
86. Further, it is the defence of the accused that
the items as mentioned at Sl.No.91, 111, 135 and
162 valuing Rs.91,000/- belonged to different
people. It is argued by the Learned counsel for the
accused that along with the declaration/schedule,
the accused has furnished the sworn affidavit of the
said persons and hence, Rs.91,000/- is required to
be deducted from the said assets.
87. In respect of the item mentioned at Sl.No.91
and 111 i.e. Stayfit Walker Machine and Weighing
Machine is concerned, it is the contention of the
accused that said household articles were received
by AGO as they were given to him by his brother
71
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
Sri.K.R.V.Murthy and the declaration in this regard
is made at page No.1971 of his schedule and
Purchase Bill issued in the name of K.R.V.Murthy
and letter written by Sri.K.R.V.Murthy to IO, which
is produced along with the schedule is supporting
the defence of the accused. On the other hand, the
learned Public Prosecutor has pointed out that the
said Bill relied by the accused is marked as Ex.P.4,
which is admittedly seized by the IO and how the
accused or his brother Sri.K.R.V.Murthy could get
the copy of seized Ex.P.4 and how they have
produced the same along with the schedule of the
accused is to be explained by the accused. Apart
from this, the learned Public Prosecutor also
submitted that the accused in his cross-examination
has clearly admitted that at the time of preparation
of Ex.P.5 panchanama, he has not informed the IO
that said Treadmill was given to him by his brother
and he has admitted that Ex.P.4 receipt reveals that
the same was booked on 26-09-2007 and his wife
has signed as customer and as per the said receipt,
said Treadmill was purchased by paying cash and
72
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
the delivery address mentioned in Ex.P.4 is his
residential address. DW.1 has made an attempt to
give explanation that on behalf of his brother, his
wife has signed the said receipt. DW.1 has denied
that Ex.P.4 and other receipts were seized by the IO
when the raid was conducted to his residence and
he has denied that through his brother, he has
submitted false affidavit in this regard.
88. On careful perusal of the evidence on record, it
clearly reveals that though the said item No.91 as
mentioned in Ex.P.5 is appears to be purchased in
the name of brother of the accused, the same was
delivered to house of the accused and the payment
was made by cash and the signature of the customer
as found in the receipt is the signature of the wife of
the accused itself. If at all the said Treadmill was
purchased by the brother of the accused, the
original bill and receipt ought to have been in
possession of the brother of the accused and not at
the house of the accused. Hence, the Court is of the
opinion that though Ex.P.4 stands in the name of
73
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
the brother of the accused , the said item No.91 and
111 cannot be considered as gifted by brother of the
accused, since the accused has failed to clear the
above said suspicious circumstances existing as
discussed above. Apart from this, the accused has
also not made any attempt to examine his brother to
prove his defence. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons,
the Court holds that the above said valuation made
by the IO in respect of items mentioned at Sl.No.91
and 111 is proper and correct.
89. Further, in respect of item mentioned at
Sl.No.135 and Sl.No.162, it is the contention of the
accused that the above said household articles were
belonged to one Mr.Shashikiran and Mr.Shirish
respectively. The accused even in his evidence has
reiterated the said aspect and the accused has also
furnished sworn affidavit of Mr.Shashikiran at Page
No.1973 of his schedule and also furnished
Purchase Bill at page No.1974 of the schedule,
which is marked as Ex.D.38, which clearly reveals
that the same appears to have been purchased by
74
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
Mr.Shashikiran on 12-08-2007.
90. So far as the item mentioned at Sl.No.162 i.e.
Laptop valuing Rs.30,000/- is concerned, the
accused has produced sworn affidavit of one
Mr.Shirish, which is found at Page No.1975 of
schedule and Xerox copy of Bill produced along with
the schedule reveals that the same appears to have
been purchased by Mr.Shirish for a sum of
Rs.61,750/-.
91. As mentioned above in respect of above said
items described at Sl.No.135 and 162 are concerned,
the accused has furnished acceptable evidence and
also produced required evidence and therefore, the
Court is of the opinion that the said explanation
given by the accused in respect of above said articles
is required to be accepted and hence, the value of
those articles i.e. Rs.11,790/- + Rs.61,750/- needs
to be deducted from the value of household articles
as assessed by the IO.
75
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
92. The accused has admitted that the articles
mentioned in mahazar at Sl.No.3, 4, 8, 9, 11 to 13,
15 to 17, 19, 23 to 44, 46, 48, 50, 52 to 77, 85 to
87, 89, 92, 94, 98, 99, 100, 103, 105 to 109, 112 to
115, 118, 119, 121 to 124, 127, 129, 131 to 140,
142, 144, 145, 146, 148 to 151, 153, 156, 159, 161,
163, 164 to 169, 171, 172, 174, 175, 177 to 180
valuing Rs.4,47,000/- were acquired by him and the
accused has admitted the same. However, it is
contended by the accused that the rates were
inflated by the prosecution and hence, the accused
sought deduction of 25% in the said value as
assessed by the IO. As mentioned above, the
contents of Ex.P.5 mahazar and oral testimony of
PW.3, PW.6 and PW.7 reveals that the IO has
approximately estimated the value of all the
household articles only after discussing with panch
witnesses and accused and his wife. Even the
valuation as assessed by the IO appears to be
minimum under the circumstance. Therefore, the
Court is of the opinion that the accused has not
made out any circumstance to deduct 25% of the
76
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
value of household articles as sought.
93. As discussed above, the accused has
succeeded in proving that the value assessed by the
IO in respect of articles mentioned at Sl.No.135 and
Sl.No.162 is wrongly included by the IO, the Court
holds that the aforesaid amount of Rs.11,790/- +
Rs.61,750/- = Rs.73,540/- is to be deducted from
the total value of household articles i.e.
Rs.8,07,200/- as assessed by the IO.
94. In view of the above said discussions regarding
assets of the accused, the Court is of the opinion
that Rs.1,04,662/-+ Rs.12,62,250/- + Rs.11,790/- +
Rs.61,750/- total Rs.14,40,452/- needs to be
deducted from the total value of the assets as
assessed by the IO i.e. Rs.55,55,963/-. Hence, the
total value of the assets of the accused and his
family members during the check period is
calculated by the Court as Rs.55,55,963/- –
Rs.14,40,452/- = Rs.41,15,511/-.
77
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
WITH REGARD TO THE EXPENDITURE OF THE
ACCUSED:
95. The IO in his final report in the column of list
of expenditure of AGO and his family members has
mentioned total 26 items,which were stated to be
acquired by the AGO and his family members during
the check period. Admittedly, the accused in this
case has disputed the value in respect of the
following expenditure i.e. EWC-1, EMF-1, EMM-1
and EMO-1, ECT-1, EDF-1, EE-I and not disputed
the remaining expenditure. The list of expenditure is
as follows:
ASSETS Description of expenditure Value as per IO
CODE
EASR- Stamp duty and registration Rs. 25,230/-
1 charges in respect of
purchase of Site No.12 of
Sanjay Gandhi Nagar,
Ballary
EASR- Stamp duty and registration Rs. 6,280/-
2 charges in respect of
purchase of Site No.1793/8
of Vishweshwaraiah Layout
EASR- Stamp duty and registration Rs. 3,905/-
3 charges in respect of
purchase of Plot No.43 of
Cantonment, Ballary
EAT-1 Property Tax Rs. 4,368/-
EAT-2 Property Tax Rs. 46,570/-
EWC-1 Payment made towards Rs. 33,147/-
BWSSB in respect of house
No.63 of JP Nagar
78
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
EEC-1 Electricity consumption Rs. 50,646/-
charges towards house
no.63 of Basaveshwara
Nagar
EEC-2 Electricity consumption Rs. 6,159/-
charges at Gangavathi
EMF-1 Fuel and maintenance cost Rs. 45,698/-
EMM-1 of Honda Activa
EMO-1
ECM-1 Payment made towards spice Rs. 414/-
mobile
ECT-1 BSNL expenses in respect of Rs. 92,376/-
landline at House No.63 of
JP Nagar
ERB-1 Repayment of loan to SBM, Rs. 8,04,499/-
Ballary
ERB-2 Repayment of loan to Sudha Rs. 21,375/-
Co-operative Bank
ERB-3 Repayment of loan to Sudha Rs. 29,693/-
Co-operative Bank
EBLB- Payment made towards bank Rs. 5,242/-
1 locker
EIT-1 Payment of income tax Rs. 74,736/-
EDF-1 PCME Rs. 8,57,767/-
EE-1 Daughter's education Rs.1,73,785-50
EE-2 Son's education Rs. 1,95,663/-
EG-1 Payment towards gas Rs. 14,289/-
connection
EG-2 Consumption charges Rs. 950/-
towards cooking gas
EO-01 Payment made towards the Rs. 9,895/-
purchase of watch
EO-02 Payment made towards Rs. 65/-
driving license
EO-03 Purchase value of treadmill Rs. 00
TOTAL Rs.24,98,977/-
96. As mentioned above, excluding the above said
EWC-1, EMF-1, EMM-1 and EMO-1, ECT-1, EDF-1,
79
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013EE-I, the accused has not disputed the above
mentioned expenditure and its value as assessed
and reported by the IO in his final report. Therefore,
this Court opines that there is no necessity to
appreciate and analyze the available oral and
documentary evidence in detail regarding the above
said admitted expenditure.
DISPUTED EXPENDITURE
i) Expenditure Code- EWC-1: Payment of water bills
towards house No.63 of JP Nagar:
97. In the final report, the IO has stated that the
accused was residing in the house of his brother-in-
law Mr.Uday and during his stay in the said house,
the AGO has incurred the expenditure of
Rs.33,147/-, which being the consumption charges
of water. The accused in this case admits that
Rs.24,147/- is paid by the AGO towards
consumption charges of water and the accused
disputes about the calculation made by BWSSB
authorities on average basis from 11-09-2000 to
March 2003, which is calculated as Rs.9,000/-. It is
the contention of the accused that he was working at
80
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
Hosakote from 27-01-2000 to 13-07-2002 and
hence, the excess amount of Rs.9,000/- as
calculated by IO is required to be deducted from the
expenditure account of the AGO.
98. On the other hand, the Learned Public
Prosecutor has submitted that admittedly the
accused stayed at house of his brother-in-law
Mr.Uday and as admitted by DW.1, no lease deed or
any documents were executed in this regard which
indicates the date of entry of AGO to that house. It
is further submitted that in Ex.P.40, the address of
daughter of accused in the School records shows
that the accused was residing at house No.63, III
Phase, JP Nagar, Bengaluru and Ex.P.26, page
No.409, which is the account opening form of son of
the accused by name Sri.K.S.Sudeep also reveals
that even in t he year 2000, they stayed in the said
house of Mr.Uday and hence, the water consumption
charges of the said house as assessed by the IO is
proper and correct. It is also argued that even DW.1
in his cross-examination has admitted that no
81
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
document is furnished by him, which shows that
exactly in which period, he stayed in the house of
his brother-in-law.
99. On perusal of the records, it reveals that as
per Ex.P.33, the prosecution has produced the water
bills issued by BWSSB authorities for the period
commencing from 11-09-2000 to 21-10-2008. This
document shows that Rs.24,147/- water
consumption charges was assessed for the period
from April 2003 to October 2008 and Rs.9,000/- is
assessed for the usage of water from 11-10-2000 to
March 2003. As mentioned above, the accused is
not disputing about the expenditure of Rs.24,147/-
water usage charges. The accused is disputing
Rs.9,000/- assessed by the said authorities for
usage of water from 11-10-2000 to March 2003,
which is calculated on average basis.
100. The materials on record particularly page No.2
of the final report reveals that from 27-01-2000 till
13-07-2002 the accused worked at Hosakote Circle.
82
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
When the accused is posted at Hosakote and
working at Hosakote area, considering the water
usage charges of the said house for the said period
does not arise at all. Even PW.7 in his cross-
examination at para No.144 to 146 has clearly
admitted that in respect of these aspects, he has not
enquired the owner of the said house by name
Mr.Uday. As rightly pointed out by the Learned
counsel for the accused, the prosecution has not
produced any acceptable and reliable documents,
which clearly reveals that from 27-01-2000 till 13-
07-2002 accused and his family members stayed at
house No.63, 2nd Main Road, JP Nagar, Bengaluru.
Hence, the Court is of the opinion that the said
water consumption charge of Rs.9,000/- calculated
on average basis for the period from 11-09-2000 to
March 2003 needs to be deducted from the total
water consumption charge of Rs.33,147/- as
mentioned in Ex.P.33 and hence, in respect of this
expenditure, only Rs.24,147/- has to be considered
as expenditure of AGO and his family members.
83
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
ii). Expenditure Code, EMF-1, EMM-1 and EMO-1-
Fuel and maintenance costs of Honda Activa:
101. In the final report, the IO has stated that the
accused is the RC Owner of the Honda Activa two
wheeler, which is purchased by him in the year 2001
and according to the IO, from the date of purchase
till the date of raid, the AGO has incurred the
expenditure of Rs.2,525/- towards tax and
Rs.37,873/- towards fuel and Rs.5,200/- towards
the maintenance and in total, the AGO has incurred
the expenditure of Rs.45,698/-.
102. However, it is the contention of the accused
that the prosecution has failed to prove the
expenditure on the head of fuel expenses and even
though the prosecution has examined the expert as
PW.10 and prosecution relies upon Ex.P.36, the
report of the expert, it has failed to substantiate the
same. It is also submitted that PW.10 has admitted
in his cross-examination that he has taken the price
of fuel as Rs.47.64/- based on the news paper and
according to him, the mileage of the vehicle is 40
84
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
km. per liter and vehicle had covered the distance of
31,789 km. and according to the accused, as per the
ARAI Specification, age of the vehicle is 50 km. per
liter and the total fuel consumed is only 636 liters
and the average fuel rate between 2001 to 2008 is
Rs.37,000/- and hence, the actual costs towards the
fuel is 636 x 37 = Rs.23,532/- only and the
difference amount of Rs.14,341/- required to be
deducted.
103. On the other hand, the learned Public
Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of PW.10,
who is the expert and his report submitted as per
Ex.P.36 clearly supports the fuel expenses
calculated by the IO and the accused has failed to
substantiate his contention regarding the fuel rate
and mileage of the vehicle by producing the required
documents and hence, the calculation made by the
IO needs to be accepted without any deduction.
104. On careful perusal of the materials on record
and the manner of cross-examination made to
85
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
PW.10 by the Learned counsel for the accused it
reveals that the accused in this case is not disputing
the calculation made by the IO regarding the tax and
maintenance of the vehicle in question and he is
disputing the costs on the head of fuel expenses
only. It is true that PW.10 Sri.K.C.Venkataronappa,
the retired RTO in his cross-examination has
admitted that ARAI (Automation Research
Association of India) is the institution, which is
competent authority to ascertain the mileage of the
vehicle. He has admitted that he has considered
the fuel rate of Indian Oil Corporation for the
relevant period and he has denied that he has given
a false report as per Ex.P.36.
105. In the written arguments filed by the Learned
counsel for the accused, it is stated that the accused
has furnished the copy of the ARAI Certification and
the price list of the fuel along with his written
arguments. Admittedly, no such enclosures are
furnished by the accused and during the course of
arguments, the Learned counsel for the accused has
86
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
fairly conceded that he has not produced those
documents as mentioned in the written arguments.
106. Admittedly, PW.10 who is the expert has given
evidence before the Court and also submitted report
as per Ex.P.36 and it is the accused who disputes
the costs on the head of fuel expenses only and the
burden is upon the accused to substantiate the fuel
costs as assessed by the expert in Ex.P.36 is without
any basis. To rebut the evidence of PW.10 and
Ex.P.36 report, the accused has not produced any
contra evidence and hence, under the said
circumstances, there is no impediment to hold that
the accused has failed to substantiate his
contentions and the valuation and the calculation
made by the IO in respect of fuel and maintenance
costs of Honda Activa is proper and correct.
iii). Expenditure Code- ECT-1, Payment of BSNL
Phone at House No.63 of JP Nagar:
107. In the final report the IO has clearly mentioned
that Landline Phone No.26580153 is in the name of
87
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
brother-in-law of AGO by name Mr.Uday and the
usage charges of the said telephone from 22-09-
2000 till the date of raid is Rs.92,373/- and the IO
has considered it as expenditure of the accused.
The IO has also stated that he has considered it as
the expenditure of the accused because son of the
accused by name Mr.Sudeep has given the address
of the said house of Mr.Uday while opening the bank
account at Suda Co-operative Bank.
108. However, it is the contention of the accused
that he is not disputing the bills from September
2003 which were cleared by son of the accused
through ECS from Sudha Co-operative Bank and till
September 2003, it is Mr.Uday who was paying the
Telephone bills and the total phone bill paid by son
of AGO is Rs.53,346/- and hence, difference amount
of Rs.39,030/- needs to be deducted from the
expenditure of the accused. It is also submitted on
behalf of the accused that from 27-01-2000 till 13-
07-2002, the accused was working at Hosakote and
this fact is admitted by PW.6 in her cross-
88
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
examination and even the final report also supports
this contention and hence, the allegation made by IO
that accused was residing in the house of said
Mr.Uday from 22-09-2000 till 24-07-2002 is not
correct.
109. On the other hand, the learned Public
Prosecutor has submitted that admittedly no
documents were produced by AGO which shows that
from which date, he started to live in the house of
his brother-in-law and the Ex.P.38 the documents
secured from BSNL authorities clearly reveals the
payment made regarding usage charges of landline
in the house of Mr.Uday and as per Ex.P.38, the
above said telephone number is in the name of
Mr.Uday and Ex.P.37 reveals that the son of accused
is residing in the said address which reveals that
user of the said telephone is son of the accused and
DW.1 in his cross-examination at para No.71 has
deposed that approximately in July/August 2002 he
went to reside in the house No.63 at JP Nagar and
he has also deposed that he cannot accurately say
89
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
how much telephone bill he has paid during his stay
in the said house.
110. On careful perusal of the records and Ex.P.38,
it clearly reveals that said Mr.Uday got above
mentioned landline connection in the year 1982 and
DW.1 in his cross-examination has stated that in the
year 2002 Mr.Uday was residing at house No.63 and
in the year 2002, said Uday has constructed new
house and started to reside in the said new house
and from July/August 2002 till 2012, he transferred
to Mysuru, he stayed in the said house of Mr.Uday.
111. As mentioned above, it is an admitted fact that
son of the accused by name Mr.Sudeep K.S. has
paid Rs.53,346/- towards the phone bill from
September 2003 and the payment is made through
ECS from Suda Co-operative Bank and page No.408
of Ex.P.26 and Ex.D.28 reflect the same. Further, it
is an admitted fact that from 27-01-2000 till 13-07-
2002 the accused was worked at Hosakote and PW.6
in her cross-examination at para No.74 and 75 has
90
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
admitted this aspect. PW.6 has also admitted that
she has not conducted any investigation to ascertain
from which date the AGO started to reside in house
No.63 of JP Nagar. Apart from this, page No.2 of
final report also reveals that in the above mentioned
period from 27-01-2000 till 13-07-2002 the accused
was working at Hosakote. When the accused was
working at Hosakote and not residing at House
No.63 during the said period, the question of paying
telephone bill towards the above said landline phone
by the accused or his family members does not arise
at all and hence, the difference amount of
Rs.39,030/- needs to be deducted (Rs.92,376/- –
Rs. 53,346/- = Rs.39,030/-). Hence, the Court is of
the opinion that the calculation made by the IO
regarding payment of telephone bill as mentioned in
his final report is required to be modified and
Rs.39,030/- needs to be deducted from the
expenditure as assessed by him.
iv) Expenditure Code – EDF-1, PCME:
112. The IO in his final report has stated that the
91
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
AGO and his family members have incurred the
invisible expenditure of Rs.8,57,767/- and the same
is to be considered as expenditure of the accused.
113. However, it is the specific contention of the
accused that his wife gave birth to his two children
at her parental house and she resided with her
parents 3 months prior to the birth of the children
and 3 months after the birth and hence, during the
said period, the accused was alone and hence the
calculation made by PW.5 as per Ex.P.11 is wrong. It
is also the defence of the accused that from June
1995 till March 1998 his son studied in residential
school at Renumakana Halli of Gudibande and at
that time, the AGO was working at Gulburga, Ballari
and Koppal and since the expenses of the son of the
accused is already taken separately, during the said
period, the calculation could have been made in
respect to three heads only.
114. The accused has also contended that from
2000 – 2002 his son stayed with his brother-in-law
92
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
Mr.Uday at Bengaluru and during 2000-2002 his
daughter Shruthi stayed with his sister and they
were pursuing their studies and from 27-01-2000 till
13-07-2002 he worked at Hosakote and during this
period, he resided with his wife and hence, the
expert ought to have calculated the expenses only on
two heads. It is also submitted that PW.5, the
expert in his cross-examination has admitted that
he has not considered the food habits, size of the
family and not considered the expenditure based on
age of the family members and no distinction is
made between the adult and infants. It is also
submitted that all these defences were admitted by
PW.7 the IO in his cross-examination and even
though the accused has provided the details of
expenditure including the information about the size
of the family in his schedule No.22, the IO has not
considered the same and hence, it is just and
necessary to extend the benefit of 25% deduction in
the expenditure and hence, Rs.2,14,441/- needs to
be deducted and only Rs.6,43,326/- to be
considered as expenditure under this head.
93
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
115. On the other hand, the learned Public
Prosecutor has argued that the said calculation
made by the IO in respect of above said expenditure
is supported with evidence of PW.5 the expert and
Ex.P.11 report. It is also submitted that the accused
has though taken several defences, he has not
produced any documents to show that at the
relevant point of time, his son and daughter resided
at different houses as contended by him and
admittedly during that point of time, except the AGO
no one in the family of AGO were earning and if
children are residing separately and prosecuting
their study, normally, the expenses will be high and
hence, the contentions of the accused is not tenable.
It is also submitted on behalf of the prosecution that
even the valuation made by the expert under this
head is very minimum and there exists no material
on record to discard the evidence and report of
PW.5.
116. On careful perusal of the materials on record,
it reveals that the IO has mentioned in final report
94
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
that the AGO and his family members have incurred
the invisible expenditure of Rs.8,57,767/-. To
substantiate this aspect, the prosecution has
examined PW.5 Sri.Jayadeva Prakash, who in his
evidence in detail mentioned the manner in which
he has estimated the family invisible expenditure of
the accused and prepared Ex.P.11 report. In his
cross-examination, he has deposed that on the basis
of the information furnished by IO, he has
calculated the visible and non-verifiable family
expenditure of the AGO.
117. As mentioned above, the prosecution relies
upon evidence of PW.5 and his report in respect of
the invisible expenditure of the AGO and his family
members during the check period. It is an admitted
fact that it is impossible to calculate and assess the
accurate invisible expenditure of AGO and his family
members. The said calculation always to be done by
considering the food habits, size of the family, age of
the family members, etc. In the present case, the
accused has put forwarded the contention that
95
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
during the particular period his son and daughter
were resided separately and prosecuting their study
and at some particular period, himself and his wife
only resided together, etc. Admittedly, the burden is
upon the accused to substantiate the said defence.
Mere, furnishing the details of expenditure in the
schedule, which is self serving, is not sufficient.
Even on careful perusal of the report of the PW.5
reveals that the said expert has assessed the
minimum invisible expenditure of AGO and his
family members during the check period.
118. It is settled position of law that 1/3 of income
of the person concerned is to be taken in to account
for estimating the invisible or household
expenditure. The criteria of taking 1/3 income as
household expenditure has been followed by all the
Courts. In this case, it reveals that the IO has not
taken 1/3 income of the AGO as invisible or
household expenditure and the estimated invisible
expenditure of AGO and his family members is
much less than 1/3 income of the AGO. Hence,
96
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
taking into consideration all these aspects, the Court
is of the opinion that the accused has failed to rebut
the evidence of PW.5 and he has not placed any
contra evidence to discard Ex.P.11 report and hence,
all the said contentions of AGO in this regard is
hereby negativated and the Court holds that the
calculation and estimation made by PW.5 as per
Ex.P.11 regarding invisible expenditure i.e.
Rs.8,57,767/- is proper and correct.
v) Expenditure Code- EE-1- Daughter’s education
expenses:
119. The IO in the final report has assessed that the
accused has spent total Rs.1,73,785/- towards the
education of his daughter Shruthi and he has
treated it as expenditure of the accused. To
substantiate this aspect, the prosecution has
produced the documents collected from respective
educational institution, which were found at Page
No.949 to 992 of Book No.4, which is collectively
marked as Ex.P.40. It is also the case of the
prosecution that out of the total amount
97
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
Rs.64,070/- is incurred towards Mysuru University.
The said fact is evident from Page No.977 of Book
No.4.
120. According to the accused, the IO has
considered Rs.1,320/- which was paid subsequent
to the check period and hence, the same needs to be
deducted.
121. On perusal of schedule No.17, at page No.2111
to 2114, submitted by the accused, a receipt dtd.16-
09-2008 shows that Rs.660/- and Rs.660/- in total
Rs.1320/- were paid after the check period. The
prosecution has conceded that both the said
amounts were paid after the check period. Since,
Rs.1,320/- is paid after the check period, the same
is required to be deducted and only Rs.1,72,465/-
has to be considered as expenditure under this
head.
122. In view of the above said discussion and for the
above said reasons, the Court is of the opinion that
98
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
Rs.9,000/- + Rs.39,030/- + Rs.1,320/- in total
Rs.49,350/- needs to be deducted from the total
expenditure as assessed by the IO i.e.
Rs.24,98,977/-. Hence, on recalculation, the Court
holds that the total expenditure of the AGO and his
family members during the check period is
Rs.24,98,977/- – Rs.49,350/- = Rs.24, 49,627/-.
INCOME:
123. The IO in his final report has shown 18 items
in income column and further stated that the total
income of the AGO and his family members is
Rs.47,89,194/-. The accused in this case has
disputed the assessment made by the IO in respect
of income Nos. IR-1, IIBL-2 and IIBL-4 and not
disputed the remaining heads of income. It is also
the contention of the accused that the IO has
deliberately left out several other lawful sources of
income of the accused and his family members. The
following are the details of the income of the accused
shown as acquired during the check period.
99
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
ASSET DESCRIPTION OF INCOME AS PER IO
CODE
IS-1 Salary income Rs.25,34,337/-
IR-1 Rental income Rs.10,46,637/-
IR-2 Rental income from house Rs. 48,000/-
No.25 of
Ballary
IBL-1 Loan income from SBM Rs. 4,92,000/-
IBL-2 Interest from 25-01-2005 to Rs. 38,061/-
22-10-2008from Syndicate
Bank, BasaveshwaraNagar
IBL-3 Loan income from Sudha Co- Rs. 27,000/-
operative Bank
IIBL-1 Interest income from Sudha Rs. 42,841/-
Co-operative Bank
IIBL-2 Interest income from Rs. 38,061/-
Syndicate Bank
IIBL-3 Interest income from Canara Rs. 3,874/-
Bank
IIBL-4 Interest income from SB A/c Rs. 22,092/-
No.1965
IIBL-5 Interest income from Sudha Rs. 2,071/-
Co-operative Bank
IIBL-6 Interest income from Sudha Rs. 6/-
Co-operative Bank
ID-1 Matured Fixed Deposit Rs. 49,005/-
IIP-1 Matured RD amount Rs. 25,002/-
IIP-2 Matured RD amount Rs. 38,038/-
IIP-3 Matured amount from NSC Rs.1,56,041/-
ISA-1 Sale proceed from the Rs.2,16,000/-
property
IO-1 Loan from KGID Rs. 44,400/-
TOTAL Rs.47,89,194/-
124. As mentioned above the AGO has disputed the
value in respect of IR-1, IIBL-2 and IIBL-4 only.
Hence, the Court is of the opinion that in respect of
100
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
other heads of the income, which is admitted by
AGO, there is no necessity to discuss oral and
documentary evidence in respect of said admitted
income.
DISPUTED INCOME
i) INCOME CODE NO.IR-1: Rental income from
house at JP Nagar, Bengaluru.
125. According to the IO, the accused has received a
sum of Rs.10,46,637/- as rent from the above
mentioned house at JP Nagar, Bengaluru and in the
final report, the IO has considered the said amount
as income of the accused. However, it is the
contention of the accused that even though the IO
has considered the rent payable by several tenants
including a tenant by name, Mahesh Bhuvanagiri
from November 2007 till last day of the check period,
the IO has not considered the refundable deposit of
Rs.70,000/- paid by him. It is also argued on behalf
of the accused that as per Ex.D.30, Rent Agreement,
Rs.10,000/- is paid by cash and Rs.60,000/- is paid
by way of cheque and the account extract secured
by the IO also indicates about crediting of the
101
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
cheque amount to the account of the accused and
even this fact is admitted by PW.7 in his evidence at
para No.189 of his cross-examination and therefore,
Rs.70,000/- needs to be added to the income of the
accused. It is also argued that even the rent paid by
the tenants also reflected in the ITR filed by the
accused.
126. The Learned counsel for the accused has also
submitted that the IO has considered the rent paid
by some of the tenants of the accused in cash, but
strangely not considered the rent in cash paid by
DW.2 Dr.Mallikarjuana. It is also argued on behalf
of the accused that DW.2 has fully supported the
case of the accused regarding receipt of
Rs.5,72,123/- by way of cheque and remaining
amount in the form of cash and in total he has paid
Rs.9,32,800/- and the said defence of the accused is
supported by oral testimony of DW.1 and DW.2 and
Ex.D.29 Rent Agreement and hence, the said
difference amount of Rs.3,60,677/- has to be added
along with above mentioned Rs.70,000/- in the
102
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
income of the accused.
127. On the other hand, the the learned Public
Prosecutor has submitted that the income in respect
of rent received by AGO is properly calculated by the
IO and Ex.D.29 Rent Agreement was not seized by
IO when he conducted raid to the house of the
accused and even there exists over writings in
Ex.D.29 and DW.2 in his cross-examination has
clearly admitted that he was not aware about the
over writings found in Ex.D.29 and hence, the
evidence of DW.2 itself discloses that he has paid
rent by way of cheque to the accused and his
brother-in-law Mr.Uday and the accused has failed
to prove before the Court that he has received rent
in the form of cash also by DW.2 and hence, all
these said contentions of the accused is required to
be negativated.
128. On careful perusal of the materials on record,
it clearly reveals that the IO has considered rent
paid by tenants by name Mr.Srinivas and
103
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
Sri.N.Sathyanarayana Reddy and others and also
rent paid by Mr.Mahesh Bhuvanagiri from November
2007 till the last day of the check period.
Admittedly, Ex.D.30 Rent Agreement dtd.29-10-
2007 reveals that said tenant by name Mahesh
Bhuvanagiri has paid refundable deposit of
Rs.70,000/- to the AGO. According to the accused
and as per the recitals of Ex.D.30, Rs.10,000/- is
paid in cash and remaining advance amount of
Rs.60,000/- was paid by way of Cheque bearing
No.4910324 dtd.30-10-2007 drawn on HDFC Bank,
IT Park Whitefield, which fact is evident from Page
No.664 of Ex.P.27. Even PW.7, the IO in his cross-
examination at Para No.189 has clearly admitted
this fact and the account extract secured by the IO,
produced as per Ex.P.27 clearly supports the case of
the accused in this regard. As rightly pointed out by
the Learned counsel for the accused that no
acceptable reasons were assigned by the IO for not
considering said refundable deposit of Rs.70,000/-
as income of the accused. Therefore, taking into
consideration these facts on record, the Court opines
104
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
that said refundable deposit of Rs.70,000/- is
required to be added to the income of the accused.
129. So far as the contention of the accused that
DW.2 Dr.Mallikarjuna was his tenant is concerned,
there is no dispute by the prosecution. However, the
prosecution has questioned genuineness of Ex.D.29,
the alleged rent agreement dtd.25-02-1992. The
accused relies upon recitals of Ex.D.29 to
substantiate that said DW.2 was his tenant initially
in respect of ground floor and subsequently from 01-
01-1994, said DW.2 also became tenant in respect of
upstairs in the same building. The accused also
relies upon the affidavit of DW.2, which is marked as
Ex.D.39 and also relies upon oral testimony of DW.1
and DW.2. Further, the accused also relies upon the
declarations made in the assets and liabilities
statements from 1992 to till date by AGO and cross-
examination of PW.7, the IO in this regard.
130. On careful perusal of Ex.D.29, it reveals that
the said rental agreement appears to have been
105
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
came into existence on 25-02-1992 between the
accused and DW.2 Dr.Mallikarjuna. As rightly
pointed out by the the learned Public Prosecutor, the
designation and address of the owner/lessor was
found to be striked out without any proper counter
signature. The said document also discloses that
initially DW.2 was the tenant of ground floor of
house No.116 and from 01-01-1994, he became
tenant of upstairs of the said house also and in this
regard, some endorsements were found at 2 nd page
of Ex.D.29 and admittedly, it does not consists full
particulars of the house given on rent to accused. In
respect of said over writings found in 1 st page of
Ex.D.29 is concerned, DW.2 Mallikarjun in his
cross-examination made by the learned Public
Prosecutor has clearly stated that “ಸದರಿ ಕಟ್ಟ ಡದ
ನೆಲಅಂತಸ್ತಿ ನಲ್ಲಿ , ಸದರಿ ಕ್ಲಿ ನಿಕ್ನ್ನು ನಡೆಸುವ ಬಾಬ್ತು ಸದರಿ ಕಟ್ಟ ಡದ
ಮಾಲೀಕರ ಜೊತೆ ಪ್ರ ತ್ಯೆ ೕಕ ಕರಾರನ್ನು ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡಿರುತ್ತೆ ೕನೋ
ಇಲ್ಲ ವೋ ನನಗೆ ನೆನಪಿಲ್ಲ . ನಿ.ಡಿ.29 ನ್ನು ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಗೆ ತೋರಿಸಲಾಗಿ ಸದರಿ
ನಿ.ಡಿ.29 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾಲೀಕರ ವಿಳಾಸವನ್ನು ತಿದ್ದ ಲಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದು
ಸೂಚಿಸಿದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಯು ಈಗ ತಿದ್ದಿ ರುವಂತೆ ಕಾಣುತ್ತಿ ದೆ, ಈ ರೀತಿ
ವಿಳಾಸವನ್ನು ತಿದ್ದಿ ದ್ದೆ ೕ ಆಗಿದ್ದ ಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು ಸದರಿ ಕರಾರಿಗೆ ಸಹಿಯನ್ನ ೇ
ಹಾಕುತ್ತಿ ರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಎನ್ನು ತ್ತಾ ರೆ. ನಿ.ಡಿ.29 ನ್ನು ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ ನಮೂದಿಸಿರುವಂತೆ
106
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
ಕೇವಲ 11 ತಿಂಗಳ ಅವಧಿಗೆ ಮಾತ್ರ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳ ಲಾಗಿತ್ತು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
ನಿ.ಡಿ.29 ರಲ್ಲಿ ನ ಷರತ್ತು ಗಳ ಪ್ರ ಕಾರ ಸದರಿ ಕರಾರಿನ ಅವಧಿಯು
ಡಿಸೆಂಬರ್ 1992 ಕ್ಕೆ ಮುಗಿಯುತ್ತಿ ತ್ತು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಿ.ಡಿ.29 ರಲ್ಲಿ
ನಮೂದಿಸಿರುವಂತೆ 3 ನೇ ಪ್ಯಾ ರಾದಲ್ಲಿ ಉಲ್ಲೆ ೕಖಿಸಿರುವಂತೆ ಸದರಿ
ಮನೆಯನ್ನು ನಾನು ವಾಸ್ತ ವ್ಯ ದ ಉದ್ದೆ ೕಶಕ್ಕೆ ಬಾಡಿಗೆಗೆ ಪಡೆದಿದ್ದೆ .
ನಿ.ಡಿ.29 ರಲ್ಲಿ 2 ನೇ ಷರತ್ತಿ ನ ಪ್ರ ಕಾರ ಸದರಿ ಮನೆಯನ್ನು ಪ್ರ ತಿ ತಿಂಗಳು
ರೂ.1,200/- ಬಾಡಿಗೆಗೆ ನಾನು ಪಡೆದುಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದೆ . ಅದೇ ರೀತಿ
ನಿ.ಡಿ.29 ರಲ್ಲಿ ನಮೂದಿಸಿರುವಂತೆ ಸದರಿ ಬಾಡಿಗೆ ಮನೆಯ ಬಾಬ್ತು
ರೂ.10,000/-ವನ್ನು ಮುಂಗಡ ಹಣವನ್ನಾ ಗಿ ಪಾವತಿಸಿದ್ದೆ .”
131. Further, DW.2 has also admitted that in
Ex.D.29, no schedule of upstairs and ground floor
is described. Further, he has also deposed that the
original copy of Ex.D.29 was with the accused and
he has sworned affidavit as per Ex.D.39 as per the
request of the accused only. Apart from this, he has
also admitted that he has not produced any
documents to show that he has paid total
Rs.9,00,000/- to the accused as rent. The said
evidence of DW.2 creates a doubt about the defence
of the accused in this regard. Normally, the original
copy of rent agreement will be with the tenant and
surprisingly in this case, according to DW.2 Ex.D.29
107
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
original rent agreement was with the accused itself.
As mentioned above, DW.2 has clearly deposed
before the Court that when he signed Ex.D.29, the
same was not over written and if it was over written
or altered, he would not have put signature to it.
Further, Ex.D.29 does not contain clear description
and identification and schedule of the premises
given on rent to the DW.2. Since the IO has
considered the payment of rent of Rs.5,72,123/- by
DW.2 as income, which is admittedly paid by way of
cheque, the same is required to be accepted and
considered.
132. Apart from this, it is relevant to note that,
Ex.D.29 Rental Agreement was not seized by the IO
when the raid was conducted to the residence of the
accused and even the same was not furnished to the
IO along with the schedule. The said Ex.D.29 was
produced before the Court at the time of defence
evidence and not earlier. If at all the original Rent
Agreement was with AGO, the same ought to have
been seized by the IO when the raid was conducted.
108
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
Further, DW.1, K.R.Surendra Rao in his cross-
examination has clearly admitted that Ex.D.29 was
with him, when the raid was conducted and he has
also admitted that there exists over writings in
Ex.D.29 in respect of his address. Ex.D.39 Affidavit
of DW.2 cannot be taken into consideration as DW.2
himself deposed before the Court that the same was
prepared at the instance of AGO.
133. The materials on record reveals that the
accused has not produced relevant and acceptable
evidence to substantiate that he has received total
Rs.9,40,000/- from DW.2 as contended. Since the
prosecution admits and since the IO has already
considered that the accused has received
Rs.5,72,123/- rental income from DW.2, the same
has to be accepted as the income of the accused.
The accused has not adduced sufficient and
acceptable, relevant and required evidence to
substantiate that DW.2 has paid rent in cash also,
sometime to him and to his brother-in-law. Taking
into consideration these facts, i.e. non-seizer of
109
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
Ex.D.29 at the house of the accused, unexplained
over writings in Ex.D.29 and the evidence of Dws.1
and 2 clearly supports the contention of the
prosecution that the accused has failed to prove his
said defence as contended. Therefore, only
Rs.5,72,123/- as considered by the IO, is to be
considered as income of the AGO as mentioned in
the final report and all other contentions of AGO
requesting to consider remaining rental income of
Rs.3,60,677/- is required to be negativated. Hence,
under this income code Rs.70,000/- only to be
added to the income of the accused as assessed by
the IO.
ii) INCOME CODE NO.IIBL-2- INTEREST FROM 25-
01-2005 TO 22-10-2008 FROM SYNDICATE BANK,
BASAVESHWARANAGAR BRANCH.
134. In the final report, the IO has stated that
during the check period, the accused has received
income in the form of interest of Rs.38,061/- only.
However, according to the accused, the income
certificate produced by him along with the schedule
shows that his interest income is Rs.45,434.39 and
110
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
hence, the difference amount of Rs.7,373/- needs to
be added as his income.
135. In respect of this contention of the accused,
there is no serious dispute by the prosecution. The
final report of the IO discloses that the IO has
secured statement from the bank, which is
collectively marked as Ex.P.27. Apart from this, the
income certificate produced by AGO along with the
schedule reveals that from 01-04-2000 to 22-10-
2008, the interest received as income is
Rs.45,434.39 and this is evident from page No.2102
of the schedule, wherein the Syndicate Bank
authorities have issued interest certificate. In
addition to it, PW.7 the IO in his cross-examination
has admitted that he has verified the said interest
certificate. Hence, taking into consideration the
above said oral and documentary evidence on
record, there is no ambiguity to hold that the IO has
wrongly considered Rs.38,061/- as income in the
form of interest and he has failed to consider
Rs.45,434.39 as income in the form of interest and
111
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
therefore the difference amount of Rs.7,373/- is
required to be added as income of the accused.
iii) INCOME CODE NO.IIBL-4 – INTEREST FROM SB
ACCOUNT NO.1965, RELATED TO MR.SUDEEP.
136. In the final report, the IO has stated that with
reference to above mentioned SB account, the son of
the accused has received Rs.22,092/- in the form of
interest and he has taken it as income of the
accused. To substantiate this aspect, the
prosecution relies upon Ex.P.26, specifically page
No.408 to 589.
137. However, it is the contention of the accused
that the IO has wrongly considered the interest
income as Rs.22,092/- instead of Rs.26,463/- as
mentioned in the certificate issued by the Bank itself
and even PW.7 the IO has admitted this aspect in
his cross-examination and therefore, the difference
amount of Rs.4,371/- needs to be added as income
of the accused.
112
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
138. On the contrary, during the course of
arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor has
submitted that the said contention of the accused is
not tenable, since Ex.P.26 clearly reveals that during
the check period Rs.22,092/- is only credited as
interest to the account of the son of the accused and
nothing else.
139. On careful perusal of the evidence on record
and Ex.P.26, Page No.411 to 418 reveals that on the
below mentioned dates, below mentioned amount
was credited as interest to the account of son of the
accused viz.
Sl. Date Amount of interest
No. credited to the account
of son of the accused
1. 31-03-2001 Rs. 574-00
2. 29-09-2001 Rs. 489-00
3. 31-03-2002 Rs. 596-00
4. 30-09-2002 Rs. 2,743-00
5. 29-03-2003 Rs. 469-00
6. 30-09-2003 Rs. 618-00
7. 31-03-2004 Rs. 1,373-00
8. 30-09-2004 Rs. 1,684-00
9. 30-09-2005 Rs. 2,521-00
10. 31-03-2006 Rs. 3,068-00
11. 30-09-2006 Rs. 2,631-00
113
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
12. 31-03-2007 Rs. 2,632-00
13. 29-09-2007 Rs. 1,728-00
14. 31-03-2008 Rs. 773-00
15. 30-09-2008 Rs. 193-00
Total Rs. 22,092-00
140. The above said bank statement clearly reveals
that only Rs.22,092/- is credited as interest to the
account of son of the accused and not Rs.26,463/-
as contended by the accused and as mentioned in
interest certificate, produced by the accused in his
schedule at Page No.2101. When the documents
itself clearly reveals the total amount of interest
credited to the account of Mr.Sudeep is Rs.22,092/-,
the Court is of the opinion that the IO has properly
considered Rs.22,092/- as income of the accused
from the interest accrued to the said account.
141. In view of aforesaid discussion regarding the
disputed income of the AGO, the Court for the
aforesaid reasons holds that Rs.70,000/- +
Rs.7,373/- = Rs.73,373/- is to be added to the
income as assessed by the IO. Hence, the total
114
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
income of the accused is Rs.47,89,194/- +
Rs.77,373/- = Rs.48,66,567/-.
142. However, the accused has further contended
that the Investigating Officers in this case have not
conducted proper investigation and they have
deliberately left some income of the accused and
PW.7 has admitted these facts in his cross-
examination and according to Learned counsel for
the accused, the following are the left out income of
the accused. Viz:
LEFT OUT INCOME NO.1:
i) Loan availed by accused from Sri.Venkatesh
Murthy and Sri.Ramachandrappa:
143. It is the defence of the accused that he has
constructed the house at Sanjay Gandhi Nagar,
Ballary. After intimating his higher authorities and
after obtaining permission from the competent
authority and on 10-09-1998 and on 02-12-1999 he
has informed the department that he has borrowed
loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from his brother
Sri.Venkatesh Murthy and Rs.1,00,000/- from
115
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
Sri.Ramachandrappa. It is argued on behalf of the
accused that the accused has declared these facts in
his assets and liability statement for the year 1999-
2000 and again the same declaration made in the
year 2002-2003 and IO has though collected his
assets and liability statement as per Ex.P.17, he has
not considered the said amount as his income by
assigning reason that the said amount was not
received by way of cheque.
144. The learned Counsel for the accused has
further submitted that PW.17 IO, in his cross-
examination has admitted that he has not
considered the said amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as
income of the accused and the said opinion of the IO
is wrong and law does not mandate that personal
loan has to be obtained only through cheque.
145. On the other hand, the learned Public
Prosecutor has submitted that the accused has not
adduced acceptable evidence in respect of these
contentions and hence, the said contention of the
116
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
accused is not tenable.
146. On careful perusal of the materials on record,
it reveals that the accused has declared that he has
borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from his brother
Sri.K.R.Venkatesh Murthy and Rs.1,00,000/- from
Sri.Ramachandrappa and the said declaration is
made in the asset and liability statement of the year
2002-2003, which is evident from Page No.192 and
193 of Ex.P.17. Further, Page No.1728 and 1729 of
File No.8 reveals that the accused has informed his
higher authorities and obtained permission to
construct the house at Sanjay Gandhi Nagar,
Ballary. It is surprised to note that the IO has not
collected the asset and liability statement of the
accused for the year 1999-2000. However, the
declaration made by the accused in his schedule
reveals that in the asset and liability statement for
the year 1999-2000, which is at page No.1520
reveals the declaration is made by the accused in
this regard.
117
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
147. Admittedly, the said opinion of the IO for not
considering the above said loan amount as income of
the accused is not acceptable one. No acceptable
reasons were assigned by PW.6 and PW.7, the
Investigating Officers for not interrogating said Sri.
Venkatesh Murthy and Sri. Ramachandrappa in this
regard. When the Investigating Officers came to
know that the accused has declared that he has
constructed the building by availing hand loans,
they ought to have enquired the persons who have
extended financial assistance to the accused. These
aspects are clearly admitted by PW.7 in his cross-
examination also. Since the said declaration as to
borrowing of loan from above said two persons is
made by the accused at an undisputed point of time,
the Court is of the opinion that the said amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- has to be considered as income of the
accused and the contention made by the accused in
this regard is tenable.
ii) Loan availed by son of the accused by name
Mr.Sudeep.
148. It is the specific contention of the accused that
118
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
in order to purchase an industrial site, his son
Mr.Sudeep has received a loan of Rs.3,50,000/- from
his grand-mother through demand draft and in this
regard, the accused has made declaration in his
schedule and even his son is examined as DW.3 and
Ex.D.31 the Certificate issued by the Bank supports
the defence of the accused and Ex.D.32 discloses
credit of the said amount in his account and the
accused has declared the receipt of said amount by
his son in his asset and liability statement for the
year 2003-2004 and even the IO has admitted the
said aspect in his cross-examination and hence, the
said left out income of Rs.3,50,000/- need to be
considered as income of the accused.
149. On the other hand, the learned Public
Prosecutor has submitted that Ex.D.31 and D.32
and evidence of DW.1 and DW.3 no doubt reveals
that the son of accused has received Rs.3,50,000/-
from his grand-mother, but there is no evidence on
record, which reveals that from the said amount
only, son of the accused has purchased industrial
119
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
site as contended. In this regard, the learned Public
Prosecutor has pointed out that the said amount
was credited to the account of Mr.Sudeep on 30-03-
2002 and admittedly the said industrial site was
purchased more than a year after 30-03-2002 and
DW.3 Mr.Sudeep in his cross-examination has
admitted that he has purchased the site on 21-04-
2003 and he has withdrawn Rs.3,00,000/- on 02-
05-2002 and further withdrawn Rs.1,00,000/- on
09-05-2002 and hence, as on the date of alleged
purchase of industrial site i.e. on 21-04-2003, the
son of the accused was not having such amount to
purchase the site and the said site was purchased
by the accused in the name of his son illegally and
hence, the said amount cannot be considered as left
out income of the accused as contended.
150. On careful perusal of the evidence and
documents on record, it reveals that it is an
undisputed fact that said Mr.Sudeep had purchased
an industrial site on 21-04-2003 from Sri.Rajkumar
and further, it is evident from Ex.D.31 the certificate
120
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
issued by the bank that Smt.N.Thayamma Ramu
has purchased a D.D. for Rs.3,50,000/- on 21-03-
2002 in favour of Sri.K.S.Sudeep and Ex.D.32 the
endorsement issued by Sri.Sudha Co-operative Bank
Ltd. discloses that the said amount of Rs.3,50,000/-
was credited to the account of Sri.K.S.Sudeep on 30-
03-2002 and Ex.P.26 reveals that on 09-05-2002
said Sudeep has withdrawn Rs.1,00,000/- and on
02-05-2002 he has withdrawn Rs.3,00,000/-.
151. Apart from this DW.3 Sudeep in his evidence
has deposed before the Court about receipt of
Rs.3,50,000/- from his grand-mother and the asset
and liability statement of the accused for the year
2003-2004 reveals that the accused has declared
about the receipt of said amount by his son. It is
also an admitted fact that the IO has not collected
the asset and liability statement for the year 2003-
2004 for the reasons best known to him. The fact
that the accused has informed the department in
this regard is evident from Page No.1737 of File
No.8. PW.7 the IO in his cross-examination has
121
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
clearly admitted that he has not considered said
amount of Rs.3,50,000/- as income of the accused
and he has admitted that as per the schedule
information, the accused has made declaration
regarding receipt of said amount. No valid reasons
were assigned by the prosecution for not considering
said amount of Rs.3,50,000/- as income of the
accused. Since the accused has declared about
receipt of Rs.3,50,000/- by his son from his grand-
mother at an undisputed point of time and Ex.D.31
and D.32 coupled with oral evidence of DW.1 and
DW.3 supports the said contention of the accused,
the Court opines that the said amount of
Rs.3,50,000/- has to be considered as income of the
accused.
iii) Loan borrowed by Mr.Sudeep for construction of
commercial sheds at industrial estate, Bengaluru.
152. It is the specific contention of the accused that
his son has availed loan of Rs.5,00,000/- each from
Sudha Co-operative Bank Ltd. On 31-05-2005 and
on 20-02-2006. It is also the case of the accused
122
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
that he has declared these facts in his asset and
liability statement for the year 2005-2006 and the
account statement of his son produced as per
Ex.P.26 also supports his contention and even PW.7,
the IO in his cross-examination has admitted these
aspects and strangely the IO has not considered the
said amount as income and hence, the Learned
counsel for the accused has submitted that the said
amount of Rs.10,00,000/- has to be considered as
income of the accused.
153. On careful perusal of the evidence on record, it
reveals that DW.3 Mr.Sudeep in his evidence
deposed before the Court regarding availing of Rs.10
Lakhs loan from Sudha Co-operative Bank Ltd. and
credit of said loan amount to his account and the
account statement of Mr.Sudeep produced as per
Ex.P.26 at Page No.407-589 of Book No.4 discloses
about credit of Rs.5,00,000/- each to the account of
Mr.Sudeep on 30-05-2005 and on 20-02-2006.
However, it is the contention of the learned Public
Prosecutor that though amount is credited to the
123
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
account of Mr.Sudeep, no where it is mentioned
which kind of loan is availed by said Mr.Sudeep.
However, the Court opines that the said contention
of the prosecution is not tenable because, availment
of loan of Rs.10 lakhs by Mr.Sudeep is evident from
the oral and documentary evidence on record.
154. Apart from this, the schedule submitted by the
accused reveals that the accused has declared about
receipt of said loan by his son in his asset and
liability statement for the year 2005-2006 and it is
surprised to note that the IO has not made any
efforts to secure the asset and liability statement of
the accused for the year 2005-2006 for the reasons
best known to him. PW.7 the IO, in his cross-
examination at para No.187 has clearly admitted
these facts. Taking into consideration these
admitted facts on record and oral and documentary
evidence on record, the Court is of the opinion that
the prosecution has not assigned any valid and
acceptable reason for not considering said amount of
Rs.10,00,000/- as income of the accused and
124
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
therefore, the Court is of the opinion that the
contentions made by the accused in this regard is
acceptable and accordingly, the Court holds that
Rs.10,00,000/- has to be considered as income of
the accused.
iv) Rental and refundable advance in respect of Shed
at Industrial Estate at Bengaluru:
155. It is the contention of the accused that his son
has constructed the industrial shed and given it on
rent to the tenant by name Mr.Lakshmi Narayana on
monthly rent of Rs.24,200/- from 30-05-2006 and
also received Rs.2,50,000/- as refundable deposit
and in this regard, he has made a declaration in his
asset and liability statement for the year 2006-2007
and also enclosed the copy of the Lease Deed dtd.30-
05-2006 and the said Lease Deed is also marked as
Ex.D.33.
156. The Learned counsel for the accused has
further submitted that his son has received
Rs.6,77,600/- rent for 28 months from 01-06-2006
125
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
to 22-10-2008 and refundable deposit is
Rs.2,50,000/- and since the tenant continued
thereafter till July 2017 and since the tenant
became a defaulter in paying the rent from July
2006, his son has filed suit in O.S.No.1563/2018 for
recovery of unpaid rents and the said suit was
decreed, which is evident from Ex.D.34 to D.36 and
hence, the above said rental income of
Rs.6,77,600/- and refundable deposit of
Rs.2,50,000/- needs to be considered as income of
the accused.
157. On careful perusal of the materials on record,
it reveals that on behalf of the accused , Ex.D.33 the
Lease Deed is produced and got marked. The said
Lease Deed reveals that on 30-05-2006 son of the
accused and one Lakshmi Narayan entered into
Lease Deed in respect of Shed in industrial estate
and the monthly rent was fixed at Rs.24,200/- and
refundable deposit is Rs.2,50,000/-. The said fact is
evident from oral testimony of DW.1 K.Surendra Rao
and DW.3 K.S.Sudeep. Apart from this, Page No.199
126
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
to 202 of Ex.P.17, the asset and liability statement
of the accused also reveals that the accused has
declared about receipt of rent and refundable
deposit by his son and a copy of Lease Deed is also
annexed to the said asset and liability statement for
the year 2006-2007. Admittedly, the said Lease
Deed is marked as Ex.D.33 and the monthly rent of
Rs.24,200/- is if calculated from 01-06-2006 to 22-
10-2008 (as on the date of raid), it would be
Rs.6,77,600/-. The said materials on record also
reveals that son of the accused has received
refundable deposit of Rs.2,50,000/- and no valid
reasons were assigned by the IO and the prosecution
for not considering both the said amounts as income
of the accused.
158. As mentioned above, the accused has
contended that said tenant Mr.Lakshmi Narayana
became defaulter from July 2016 and he continued
as a tenant till July 2017 and thereafter, son of the
accused filed civil suit and the said suit was
decreed. On behalf of the accused, Ex.D.34
127
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
Certified copy of the plaint, Ex.D.35 Certified copy of
the written statement, Ex.D.36 certified copy of the
judgment and decree were produced, which clearly
reveals that the said tenant Sri.Lakshmi Narayana
became defaulter and the son of the accused filed
the civil suit and the same was decreed. Ex.D.34
certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.1563/2018, at
para No.9 reveals the rent due from the said tenant
and on the basis of said averment of the plaint, it
can be concluded that prior to July 2016, son of the
accused has received rent from said tenant and
there is no due. Further, all these facts were
admitted by PW.7 the IO in his cross-examination
and considering all these facts, the Court is of the
opinion that the IO has not assigned any reasonable
explanation to exclude the above said rent amount
of Rs.6,77,600/- and refundable deposit of
Rs.2,50,000/- and therefore, both said amounts
need to be considered as income of the accused.
v) Income from the dividends:
159. During the course of arguments, the Learned
128
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
counsel for the accused has submitted that the
accused has received Rs.2,04,011/- in the form of
dividend from Sudha Co-operative Bank, Ltd. and
the IO has though taken the investment made to
said Co-Operative Bank as asset, not considered the
dividend as income and Ex.D.37 the Certificate
issued by the said Co-operative Bank supports the
contention of the accused and hence, the said
amount has to be considered as income of the
accused.
160. On perusal of the records, it reveals that in his
schedule No.15A, the accused has claimed the
income of Rs.2,04,011/- as it is received by him as
dividends from Sudha Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Ex.D.37 the Certificate, issued by Sudha Co-
operative Bank Ltd. reveals that the accused has
taken total dividend of Rs.2,04,011/-. As rightly
pointed out by the Learned counsel for the accused,
the IO has considered the investment made in the
said Co-operative Bank as asset, which is evident at
Page No.67 of final report. When the IO has
129
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
considered the investment as asset, he ought to have
considered the dividend as income of the accused
and no valid reasons were assigned by the
prosecution and by the IO for not considering the
said dividend as income of the accused. Hence, for
the said reasons, the Court holds that the above
said amount of Rs.2,04,011/- is to be considered as
income of the accused, which is left out by the IO
without any explanation and reasons.
161. In view of the above said discussions on the
contention of the accused regarding left out income,
the Court holds that Rs.2,00,000/- + Rs.3,50,000/-
+ Rs.10,00,000/- + Rs.6,77,600/- + Rs.2,50,000/- +
Rs.2,04,011/- = total Rs.24,80,011/- has to be
added to the above calculated income of
Rs.48,70,938/-. Hence, in view of the above said
discussions, the Court holds that the total income of
the accused and his family members during the
check period is Rs.48,70,938/- + Rs.24,80,011/- =
Rs.73,50,949/-.
130
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
162. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons and in view of
the above said discussions and after taking into
consideration the evidence and materials on record,
the Court recalculates the assets, expenditure and
income of the accused during the check period as
below mentioned, in comparison with the calculation
made by the IO and the accused.
As per the IO As per the AGO As per the
calculation of the
Court
1. Assets Rs.55,55,963/- Rs.33,22,601/- Rs.41,15,511/-
2. Expenditure Rs.24,98,977/- Rs.22,20,845/- Rs.24,49,627/-
3. Assets + Rs.80,54,941.62 Rs.55,43,446.00 Rs.65,65,138/-
Expenditure
4. Income Rs.47,89,194.85 Rs.77,11,626/- Rs.73,50,949/-
5. DA Rs.32,65,746.77 NIL NIL
6. Percentage 68.19% NIL NIL
163. As mentioned above, as per the calculation
made by the Court on the basis of the evidence on
record, the income of the accused and his family
members during the check period is Rs.73,50,949/-
and the assets and expenditure is Rs.65,65,138/-
which means the income of the accused and his
family members during the check period is more
than the assets and expenditure and therefore, the
Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove
its contention that during the check period, the
131
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
accused is found in possession of the property
disproportionate to his known source of income, for
which he failed to satisfactorily explain and hence,
this Court is of the view that the prosecution has
failed to prove that the accused has committed an
offence defined under Sec.13(1)(e) punishable under
Sec.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
164. During the course of arguments, the Learned
counsel for accused has submitted that in a case of
this nature, the burden of proving everything is
upon the prosecution and that burden never shifts.
In support of this submission, Sri, P.N.H., the
Learned counsel for the accused has relied upon the
following citations:
1. (1992)4 SCC 45 between M.Krishna
Reddy Vs. State Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Hyderabad.
In this decision, the Hon’ble Apex
Court has held at para No.6 & 7
that “An analysis of Section 5(1)
(e) of the Act, 1947 which
corresponds to Section 13(1)(e) of
the new Act of 1988 shows that
is not the mere acquisition of
132
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
property that constitutes an
offence under the provisions of
the Act but it is the failure to
satisfactorily account for such
possession that makes the
possession objectionable as
offending the law.
7. To substantiate a charge
under Section 3(1)(c) of the Act,
the prosecution must prove the
following ingredients, namely,
(1) the prosecution must
establish that the accused is a
public servant, (2) the nature
and extent of the pecuniary
resources or property which
were found in his possession (3)
it must be proved as to what
were his known sources of
income, i.e. known to the
prosecution and (4) it must
prove, quite objectively, that
such resources or property found
in possession of the accused
were disproportionate to his
known sources of income. Once
the above ingredients are
satisfactorily established, the
offence of criminal misconduct
under Section 5(1)(e) is complete,
unless the accused is able to
account for such resources or
property. In other words, only
after the prosecution has proved
the required ingredients, the
burden of satisfactorily
accounting for the possession of
133
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
such resources or property shifts
to the accused.
2. (2017)14 SCC 442 Basant Rao Guhe
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
In this decision, the Hon’ble
Apex Court held that a person
cannot be subjected to a
criminal prosecution either for
a charge which is amorphous
and transitory and further on
evidence that is conjectural or
hypothetical.
3. 2000 SCC online MP 423 Subhash
Kharate Vs. State of M.P.
In this decision, the Hon’ble
Madya Pradesh High Court at
para No.11, by relying upon the
decision of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in case of Mansingh Vs.
Delhi Administration (AIR 1979
Supreme Court 1455) held that “
While dealing with the question
of presumption under S.4 of the
Act, it has been laid down that
the accused is not required to
prove his defence by the strict
standard of proof beyond
reasonable doubt, but it is
sufficient if he offers an
explanation or defence which is
probable and once this was
done presumption under S.4
stands rebutted.”
134
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
165. On careful perusal of aforesaid decisions relied
by the Learned counsel for the accused, it reveals
that the Hon’ble Apex Court in all cases observed
that the design and purport of Sec.13(1)(e) of
P.C.Act, 1988, it is apparent that primary burden to
bring home the charge of criminal misconduct
thereunder would be indubitably on prosecution to
establish beyond reasonable doubt that public
servant either himself or through anyone else had at
any time during the period of his office been in
possession of pecuniary resources or property
disproportionate to his known sources of income
and it is only on discharge of such burden by
prosecution, if he fails to satisfactorily account for
the same, he would be in law held guilty of such
offence. A public servant facing such charge cannot
be comprehended to furnish any explanation in
absence of proof of allegation of being in possession
by himself or through some one else, pecuniary
resources or property disproportionate to his known
sources of income. Even in a case, when burden is
on accused, prosecution must first prove the
135
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
foundational facts.
166. As rightly pointed out by the Learned counsel
for the accused, the investigation in this case is not
properly conducted. The evidence and materials on
record reveals that the investigating officers have not
interrogated the persons from whom the AGO
himself declared to have obtained financial
assistance. It is true that the accused has submitted
his schedule more than a year after the Lokayukta
Police conducted raid to his residence. However, it
is the bounden duty of the Investigating Officers to
verify and ascertain and cross-check about the
explanation given by the accused in his schedule. In
this case, no such exercise was conducted by the
Investigating Officers for the reasons best known to
them. Even these facts are evident from the answers
given by said Investigating Officers in their cross-
examination.
167. Taking into consideration these facts, the
Court opines that the said contention made by the
136
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
Learned counsel for the accused regarding faulty
investigation appears to be correct. The materials
on record also makes it clear that the investigating
officers have not conducted the investigation as
required. It also appears that the IO has filed charge
sheet without any proper investigation. The
investigating officers have neither opted to collect
the required available documents nor examined and
recorded the statement of material witnesses. It
appears that only for the name sake, charge sheet
has been filed without proper investigation to
unearth the truth.
168. As mentioned above, it is settled law that the
main ingredient of offence under Sec.13(1)(e) of
P.C.Act is known source of income. For the purpose
of proving the offence on the one hand, known
sources of income must be ascertained vis-a-vis. the
possession of property or resources, which were
disproportionate to the known sources of income of
public servant and inability of the public servant to
account for it, on the other. Possession of assets
137
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
disproportionate to income has to be proved by
prosecution and such possession of pecuniary
resources or property disproportionate to his known
source of income may be of his or any one on his
behalf as the case may be. Further, such public
servant would be held to be guilty of such offence of
criminal misconduct, if he cannot satisfactorily
account for such disproportionate pecuniary
resources or property. In other words, if the
prosecution fails to prove these facts, the accused
would not be required in law to offer any explanation
to satisfactorily account thereof. It is settled law
that, every accused is presumed to be innocent
unless the guilt is proved. The presumption of
innocence is a human right. The burden of proof is
always lies on the prosecution.
169. Therefore, by taking into consideration the
evidence and materials on record and the settled
principles of law, this Court comes to the conclusion
that the prosecution in this case has miserably
failed to prove the allegations levelled against the
138
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
accused beyond reasonable doubt. As mentioned
above, on appreciation of evidence and on
recalculation of assets, expenditure and income, this
Court came to the conclusion that the income of the
accused is more than the assets and expenditure
during the check period and hence, no case of
disproportionate asset is made out as alleged by the
prosecution. Hence, on analysis of all these facts
and taking into consideration all these aspects, this
Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove
the allegations levelled against the accused that he
possessed the assets disproportionate to his known
sources of income and accordingly, the Court
proceed to answer POINT NO.2 IN THE NEGATIVE.
170. POINT NO.3:- In view of the aforesaid findings
on point Nos.1 and 2, the Court proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
Acting under Sec.235 (1) of the
Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby
acquitted of the offence punishable
139
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013under Secs.13(1)(e) r/w Sec.13(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988.
The bail bond and surety bond of
the accused shall stand cancelled.
(Dictated to the judgment-writer, transcript thereof and
then corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open
Court on this the 28th DAY OF APRIL 2025).
(PRAKASH NAYAK),
LXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE & LOKAYUKTHA SPECIAL JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY.
Digitally signed
by PRAKASH
NAYAK
PRAKASH Date:
NAYAK 2025.04.28
15:02:49
+0530
140
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
PROSECUTION:
PW.1 T.N.Ravi Prakash
PW.2 Prasanna V.Raju
PW.3 Smt.Hemalatha
PW.4 G.Ganesh Rao
PW.5 Jayadeva Prakash
PW.6 H.R.Radhamani
PW.7 K.Anjan Kumar
PW.8 P.Narasimha Murthy
PW.9 V.Anil Kumar
PW.10 K.C.Venkataronappa
PW.11 Kamalakar Sait
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
THE ACCUSED:
Ex.P.1(a) Sanction Order
Signature of PW.1
Ex.P.2 Source Report
Ex.P.2(a) Signature of PW.2
Ex.P.3 Search warrant of house of accused
Ex.P.3(a) Signature of PW.3
Ex.P.3(b) Signature of CW.3
Ex.P.3(c) Signature of accused
Ex.P.4 Seized documents from accused house
Ex.P.4(a) Signature of PW.3
Ex.P.4(b) Signature of CW.3
Ex.P.5 House search mahazar
Ex.P.5(a) Signature of PW.3
Ex.P.5(b) Signature of CW.3
Ex.P.5(c) Signature of CW.4
Ex.P.5(d) Signature of accused
Ex.P.5(e) Signature of PW.6
141
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
Ex.P.6 Sudha Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Locker search
mahazar
Ex.P.6(a) Signature of PW.3
Ex.P.6(b) Signature of CW.3
Ex.P.6(c) Signature of Appraiser
Ex.P.6(d) Signature of wife of accused
Ex.P.6(e) Signature of PW.6
Ex.P.7 Search mahazar of Office of the accused
Ex.P.8 Covering letter of PWD Chief Engineer
Ex.P.8(a) Signature of Chief Engineer
Ex.P.8(b) Signature of P=W.7
Ex.P.9 Building Valuation Report
Ex.P.9(a) Signature of PW.4
Ex.P.10 Covering letter of PW.5
Ex.P.10(a) Signature of PW.5
Ex.P.10(b) Signature of PW.7
Ex.P.11 Family Expenditure Report
Ex.P.11(a) Signature of PW.5
Ex.P.11(b) Calculation Sheet
Ex.P.12 FIR
Ex.P.12(a) Signature of PW.6
Ex.P.13 Authorization order issued by S.P. to PW.6
Ex.P. 14 Requisition to depute officials for raid
Ex.P.14(a) Signature of PW.6
Ex.P.15 Requisition to Court for issue of search
warrant
Ex.P.15(a) Signature of PW.6
Ex.P.16 Service Records of AGO from DGP & IGP
Ex.P.17 APRs of AGO from ADGP, Bengaluru
Ex.P.18 Property details from Sub-Registrar,
Jayanagar, Bengaluru
Ex.P.19 Sites details from Sub-Registrar, Ballary
Ex.P.20 AGO Family members account details from
Sudha Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Bengaluru
Ex.P.21 Vehicle loans details from Sudha Co-
Operative Bank Ltd., Bengaluru
Ex.P.22 SB account details from Managar, SBM,
142
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013Ballary
Ex.P.23 Vishveshwaraiah Layout site details from
BDA
Ex.P.24 Property details from Sub-Registrar, Ballary
Ex.P.24(a) & (b) Signatures of PW.7
Ex.P.25 Bank account details of AGO from ICICI
Bank, Jayanagar, Bengaluru
Ex.P.26 Bank account details of AGO from Sudha Co-
Operative Bank Ltd., Bengaluru
Ex.P.27 Bank account details of AGO from Syndicate
Bank Basaveshwara nagar, Bengaluru
Ex.P.28 Bank account details of AGO from Canara
Bank, Ballary
Ex.P.29 Purchase details of Vehicle No.KA03 EE 5300
from Manager, City Showroom
Ex.P.30 Power connection deposit details of Property
No.116 from BESCOM
Ex.P.31 Tax paid details from R.O.-BDA of property
No.1793/8, V.V.Layout, Bengaluru
Ex.P.32 Tax paid details from ARO, BBMP, JP Nagar
of property No.116, Marenahalli.
Ex.P.33 Water consumption charges details from AEE,
South-V, BWSSB
Ex.P.34 Electricity charges paid details of Property
No.63, JP Nagar from AEE, BESCOM
Ex.P.35 Electricity Bill paid details from AEE,
Gangavathi of Police Quarters
Ex.P.35(a) Signature of PW.10
Ex.P.36 Fuel consumption details from RTO,
Yeshwanthpura
Ex.P.37 Mobile Bills details from Spice Mobiles
Service Provider
Ex.P.38 Telephone charges paid details of Telephone
No.26580153
Ex.P.39 Housing Loan details from Manager, SBM,
Bazar Branch, Ballary
143
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013Ex.P.40 Educational Expenses of AGO’s Daughter
from Venies Educational Institution
Ex.P.41 Gas Consumption details from Shakthi
Enterprises
Ex.P.42 Gas Consumption details from Ganesh Gas
Services
Ex.P.43 Gas Consumption details from Slakshmi Gas
Services, Ballary
Ex.P.44 3 KGID Policies details from KGID Director,
Bengaluru
Ex.P.45 Proceedings and order of S.P. to PW.7
Ex.P.45(a) Signature of PW.7
Ex.P.46 Police Notice to one Mr.Sathyanarayana
Reddy
Ex.P.46(a) Signature of PW.7
Ex.P.47 Notice u/S.160 of Cr.P.C. to Dr.Mallikarjuna
Ex.P.47(a)& (b) Signatures of PW.7 & DW.2
Ex.P.48 Notice u/S.160 of Cr.P.C. to Mr.Muthuraman
Ex.P.48(a) Signature of PW.7
Ex.P.49 Notice u/S.160 of Cr.P.C. to Sudeendra &
Mahesh
Ex.P.49(a) Signatures of PW.7
Ex.P.50 Notice u/S.160 of Cr.P.C. to Mr.Srinivas
Ex.P.50(a) Signature of PW.7
Ex.P.51 Notice to Bank Manager, City Bank, MG
Road Branch, Bengaluru
Ex.P.51(a) Signature of PW.7
Ex.P.52 Letter to Bank Manager, HDFC, JP.Nagar
Branch, Bengaluru
Ex.P.52(a) Signature of PW.7
Ex.P.53 Bank Statement of Sudheendra from City
Bank
Ex.P.54 Bank Statement of Muthuraman from HDFC
Ex.P.55 Bank Statement of AGO from Sudha Co-
Operative Bank Ltd.
Ex.P.56 APRs, of AGO from office of AGO
144
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013
Ex.P.57 Watch Purchase details
Ex.P.58 Charges details for obtaining DL
Ex.P.59 Salary details of AGO
Ex.P.60 Details of Income of the accused i.e. Housing
loan obtained by the AGO from SBM, Bazar
Branch, Ballary
Ex.P.61 S.P. Authorization letter to PW.8
Ex.P.61(a) Signature of PW.8
Ex.P.62 S.P. Authorization proceedings letter to PW.9
Ex.P.62(a) Signature of PW.9LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR
PROSECUTION:
NIL
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR ACCUSED:
DW.1 K.R.Surendra Rao DW.2 Dr.Mallikarjun A.S. DW.3 K.S.Sudeep
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED:
Ex.D.1 Family Memorandum of Understanding
Ex.D.2 Original covering letter
Ex.D.2(a) & (b) Signature of accused and PW.6
Ex.D.3 to D.25 Documents found at Schedule statements
Ex.D.26 Original letter dtd.27-06-2012
Ex.D.26(a) Signature of PW.7
Ex.D.27 Original Fixed Deposit dtd,12-06-2013 of
KSFC
Ex.D.28 Document relating to Sudha Co-Operative
Bank Ltd. Dtd.09-08-2016
Ex.D.29 Original Rent agreement dtd.25-02-1992
Ex.D.29(a) to (d) Signatures of DW.2
145
Spl.C.C. No. 92/2013Ex.D.30 Original Rent agreement dtd.29-10-2007
Ex.D.31 Certificate of SBM, Ballary Branch
Ex.D.32 Certificate of Sudha Co-Operative Bank
Ltd.
Ex.D.33 Rent agreement between Sudeep and
Lakshminarayana
Ex.D.34 C/C of Plaint in O.S.No.1563/2018
Ex.D.35 C/C of Written statement in
O.S.No.1563/2018
Ex.D.36 C/C of Judgment and decree in
O.S.No.1563/2018
Ex.D.37 Certificate issued by Sudha Co-Operative
Bank Ltd. Regarding dividend paid
Ex.D.38 Purchase Invoice of Jyothi Enterprises
Ex.D.39 Certificate dtd.13-01-2011 issued by DW.2(PRAKASH NAYAK),
LXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE & LOKAYUKTHA SPECIAL JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY.
Digitally signed
by PRAKASH
PRAKASH NAYAK
NAYAK Date:
2025.04.28
15:02:58 +0530
[ad_2]
Source link