Karnataka High Court
S Thimmaraja Junior Telecom Officer vs State By Cbi Ps (Special) on 17 April, 2012
Author: V.Jagannathan
Bench: V.Jagannathan
4IGH COURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 'HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CO IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 17% DAY OF APRIL2012 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VJAGANNATHAN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2795/2005 B EN: ON Bg Sri.S.Thimmaraja, Junior Telecom Officer, . Bangalore Telephone Bechange, Centre Davangere, = 7s. APPELLANT (By Sri.S. G. + Rajendra Reddy, Ady, on State by CBI . Pa PS (Special). | RESPONDENT (By. Sri.D.G. Hegde, spl PP for CBI) This: CrLA. is filed u/$.374(2) of Cr.P.C praying against tt the judgment dated 16.12.2004 passed by the - 32e¢ Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore & ~ SpiJudge for CBI Cases, Bangalore, in ~ SpLC.C.No.98/03 & etc., This CrLA. coming on for hearing this day, the Court delivered the following:- . GH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH JUDGMENT
The appellant calls in question his «< conviction : by a the tral Court in respect of an offence punishable under me Section 13(1)(e} r/fw 13(2) 'of : the 'Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and consequent sentence of two | years SI and Rs.10 000] * 'fine "imposed by 'the trial Court and im addition Jerfeiting Rs. 3 92,689)
2. The ¢ case of the prosecution in short is that the accused white working as Junior Telecom Officer in BSNL, Jegelur Telecom Exchange, Davanagere was found in possdssion of Re.4 lakhs and two gold pieces we.ghing 22.410 grams and 22.860 grams respectively and further cash of Rs.7,120/- along with house hold . articles and. according to the prosecuton, during the check period from 01.12.2000 to 16.12.2001, the os accused was having assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to an extent of Ps.4,14,894/- and would offer no satisfactory explanation for the same. Therefore, the accused was charge sheeted. oe {1GH COURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CO
3. Following the accused not pleading guilty to the charge, the prosecution let in evidence by examining PWs 1 to 8 and got marked 20 documenite along with Bix . | Ms, MOs. On the defence side, DWs 11 to 4 were. examined and & documents were marked. Learned trial Judge . after appreciating the evidenos on rected, accepted the prosecution case having weer proved beyond all reasonable doubt and concluded that the accused was found in possession of the. income to an extent of Rs.3,92 639/- which was in excess of known sources of income and accordingly, accused was convicted and sentenced as mentioned earlier.
_ 4 Sri. S. G. Rajendra Reddy, learned counsel for the * 'appellant and Sri D.G.Hegde, learned counsel for the resporiden'-CBI were heard at great length and I have ar also perused the records of thia case.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant put forward four main grounds to challenge the conviction of the appellant and they are:-
k& 1IGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 'HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH That the check period was taken 28 between 01.12.2000 to 16.12. 2001. :
which is hardly one year and tro y short a contained un Section: 1311 He e} of the F.C. o. ; Act. Therefore, on this grourid alone, -- the prosecution » has - to fall and consequently, -- conviction cannot. be sustained, > | Second point put forward is "that, the triat'c court convicted the appellant on
- the. ground: 'that the annual property
- teport was. not filed by the accused.
- Thisdy, i contended that the "accused was not put necessary _ questions for him te properly answer _ the prosecution case and 4 look at the siatement recorded by the trial Court would go to show that hardly eight questions were put to the accused and the question put did not relate to the income of the appellant during the entire period of service and what was the expenditure incurred by the appellant and no question was put to the items seized and therefore, the manner of recording of 313 statement b {IGH COURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CO has greatly prejudiced the case of the accused and for this reason also _ conviction cannot be sustained.
ivy} By referring ts che seizure ao panchanama Ex.P3, it was argued that, even the officer whe seized the. currericy notes was not aware of: the exact currency 'notes. available and what was the denomination of the said notea. But only, on the say of the "accused, 'they took it as Rs.4 lakhs. Even the accused was forced to sign _ the said panchanama as is evident : from thie "explanation given by the 7 accused.
i: 6. Another contention put forward is that, it has ; come in the evidence of PW.4 that the annual report has : to be filed ty the accused by the end of December, 2001 and. therefore the accused had eufficient time to submit SS . his: report, but the investigation was confined only to the period up to 16.12.2001 and thus, the accused was deprived of submitting his annual report by the end of December, 2001.
= x 41GH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA' HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH
7. Apart from the aforesaid defects | in the Prosecution case, learned Counsel Sri S.C. Rajendra Reddy also argued that, the trial coprt "has. 'tovally _ ignored the defence of the accused | and the evidence of DWs 1 to 4 has totally lost. sight of 'Through the defence . evidence, accused has shown: "that he was paid Rs.1,80,000/- by Dw. 2 and pw. 3 was the v witness for the said transaction and aceuned himself gave evidence ab DW.4. it the evidence of the defence were also considered, the question of accused being in possession of excesa amount would not have arisen.
8. It is then pointed out that, it has come in the oe evidence "that the wife of the accused was also an A caring member as she was a teacher and her income Was rst taken inte account. During the period from . 1992 to 1998, wife of the accused got salary of : _ Rs.87,800/- and that amount has not been taken into consideration although the trial court accepts that the wife of the accused was a teacher and was earning cértain sum as salary and non inchision of the wife's income is also a defect in the prosecution case. i {IGH COURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CO
9. Finally, it is argued that the very FIR that has led to the charge sheet being filed in the instant cose was also the subject matter of the B' report fled by the | Ss, 1.0. in R.C.No.33(A)/2001 and in view of the said 'B report having been accepted. by the trial court, accused . should not have been once again charge sheeted under the P.C. Act in reapzct. of the very same alleged
10. Ons other ground put forward is that, PW.8 Shashikumer was not authorised to take up the investigation in view, of the letter of authorisation Ex, a mentioned il 1 the name of one S.K.Nair to take oo up 'investigation in this case. Therefore, the entire MN tovestigation. Gone by PW.8 is invalid. For this reason also, conviction cannot be sustained.
11. In the light of the aforesaid contentions put forward, it is submitted that the appellant be acquitted
- of all the charges levelled against him by setting aside the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court. de . "oe 4IGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH iZ. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-CBI supported the judgment of the tela! court with all force and contended that. Stig of the Bt 7 :
report 1 is nothing to do with the preserit case aS. is clear from the very report itself and the accused being 'not able to explain the possession of Res ; Lakhs by him, necessarily a separate case. Was. segitered under the P.C.Act. As far as ths check period 3 is concerned, it 1B argued that, there is no 'indication in Section 13(1 }le) of the PC Act. that the check period should necessarily cover the entire: period of service of the accused. In this connection; learned coiynisel placed reliance on the Apex courts decision reported in AIR 1988 SC 88.
1 As far as the other grounds urged by the appellar ite + counsel are concerned, it is argued that the : ; accused did not furnish necessary information as | "required under Rule 18(1}(e] of the Civil Service Rules to his Superiors about the receipt of the amount by him by any other source and even as a4 loan from various persons. Accused was also did not submit the annual report 48 required to be done by him and no explanation be IIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CO is forthcoming from the accused as to how he came in possession of Rs.4 lakhs and it is on the way of. the accused only that Rs.4 lakhs were recovered by the investigating agency. The reasons. given by the tial court cannot be faulted and it is S subrsitted that the triel :
court has taken note of the entire material on record and has observed at. pare-34 2 of: iis * jadgiment that the accused did not give the particulars an required under Rule 18 of the Civ Services 'Rules and has not produced any y document toa , show what was the income earned by hia wife as 2. a teacher.
14, tt is also argued that the accused would not Oy have cept the amount with him when normally a person % 'who is in service in Central Government would keep the amount ina bank j mi any form and in the instant case, : no such bank documents, account boaks or pass books ; . have been produced by the accused. Therefore, the trial
--. court taking all these factors into account had disbelieved the defence version. As such, the evidence appreciation by the trial court cannot be termed as erroneous nor the findings recorded is perverse in be + HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH -10- nature. Consequently, the appeal is liable -- te _ be dis missed. |
15. In support of the aforesaid submissions, .
learned counsel for the reepondent-CB placed reliance on the decisions reported in "AIR 1981. sc 1186, AIR- 1993 SC 313 and AIR 2001. 'SC 2464, 'The aforesaid decisions were cited | to comend that when the accused had failed to 'explain satiafactorily 'the possession of Ra.4 lakhs by him, the corwiction therefore is not liable to be interfered with bs y 'this Court. Hence, the appeal be dio mined. |
16. In the light of the aforesaid contentions put : fosword by both sides, whether in the light of the | 'evidence on record, the trial Court could have convicted 7 the appellant is the point for consideration.
17. The specific case of the prosecution is that, the _ aeeused during the check period from 01.12.2000 to 16.12.2001 was found in possession of cash amounting to Ra.4 lakhs along with two gold pieces weighing 22.410 grams and 22.860 grams and cash of Re.7,120}- * t{1GH COURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CO
-t1- and the assets acquired by the accused were found to be in excess to the tune of Ra.4,14,894/-. The case against the accused started with the. "preliminary _-- investigation conducted relating to. certain inrogularitics in the form of illegal STD. routes and illegal calls. made - without any billing and the team led ty PW. Raghavendra, retired DGM: (igilance) } BSNL, on getting information about the egal ISP STD rackets were going on. at the _ dagalur 'Telephone Exchange, Davanagere, 'visited the eaid 'telephone exchange and they were toid: 'by the accused that the accused was collecting Rs. 10 000; per week from 2-3 persons for having used STD/ IsD calis and Rs.4 lakhe were found . in his house and remaining Rs.2 lakhs has been spent ; ty the accuned. A local enquiry was held by the officers namely Lakshminarayana and Raju and thereafter, the 7 NS mahazar was drawn as per Ex.P3 in regard to the : seimure of currency notes and 'B' report came to be filed by the LO. seeking closure of the case registered in RC No.33(A}/ 2001.
de MGM COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH
18. Learned counsel for the respondent-CBI does not dispute the fact of 'B' report having been fied and accepted by the trial court. Therefore, the 'question of. 7 * the accused being involved in illegal! racket < does aot arise. Then what remaing is whether the accused \ Was . found in possession of the ectvese inccine of Re.4 lakhs with him. | i9, PW.ELR Shepur, retired 'Section Supervisor of the Devanagere Telecom: District has deposed in his evidence that the accused joined as Junior Telecom Officer at t Jagalur 0 'on: 27. 10. 1998 and has spoken to the annual report filed by the accused after the end of hs 31.12.2000. It is also deposed by this witness that the i annual property returns have to be filed every year aa on the end of December. Therefore, it ig clear from the . said 'evidence that the accused had time till 31.12.2001 | te File his report. Much before the dead Une could be
- reached, charge sheet was filed covering the period up to 16.12.2001. As such, the trial court could not have found fault with the accused fer not having filed the annual property reports and consequently, the reference be 1IGH COURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CO -14- made by the trial court to Rule 18(1)(i)(b) therefore cannot be given much weight.
20. Accused had joined the service of the 7 department aa Telephone Inspector | in the month 'of June 1985 and this say of the accused has not 'been disputed by the prosecution. Therefore, the number of years of service put in by the accused up to the date of the charge is around 16 yeare, 'The prosecution ought to have placed evidence: to. show what was the total salary earned by the accused during all these 16 years. There ig no evidence placed by. 'the prosecution in this regard though the statement enclosed along with the charge Oey sheet refera to certain iivestment made by the accused i 'and the weal income earned for the check period from Ol. 12. 2900 | te 16.12.2001. Thus, the entire incame of ~ _the accused by way of salary up to the date of the ; "charge sheet is not placed by the prosecution before the Zl. Secondly, the prosecution though has examined & witnesses, no evidence is placed to show as 11GH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH
- 14 -
to what was the actual expenses incurred | by the accused during the entire period of service and and what waa his total savings.
22. PW.5- G.T. Vis hwanath, Br arich Manager of the State Bank of Mysore, Jagat has epolrer: to the 'bank | account in the name of the accused ¢ and his wife, PW.O- Ramakrishna speaks about ¢ the 2 raid conducted and the search list being marked aa 'per. EX. Pil. PW.7 is the Police Inspector who conducted the surprise check and speaks about Ex Po th 1 mahazer 23: | PW.8-Shashikumar has deposed in his evidence that. he. regigtered the case in Crime No. R. C. 22181 2002 against the accused in respect of the . offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1 le) of the P.C.Act and submitted the FIR as per Ex.P12. He alsa deposed | - in his evidence that under Section 17 of the P.C.Act, the Superintendent of Police, CBI has issued authorisation dated 25.09.2002 authorising PW.8 to investigate the case arid the said authorisation is Ex.P.15. & 1iGH COURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CO
-1$-
24. A look at Ex.P.15, the letter of authorisation reveals that the officer who was authorised to conduct | the investigation against the accused was one s. K. Heir :
and not PW.8. Therefore, there is a serious infirmity im the prosecution case at the wery inception itse elf relating to the investigation. When the officer who ig not authorised, takes up the nwestigation, the entire investigation therefore will have to o be termed as illegal,
25. Though, dearted counsel for the respondent- CBI ergued that ne question was raised with regard to authorisation, yet, the « evidence on record revealed that, Pw 8 had rio valid wuthorisation to investigate the case oe against the accused notwithstanding that the said os, wwitnoss siating that he was issued authorisation once again on 29.10.2002. The two letters of authorisaton ™ produced before the trial court as per Exs.P15 and P17 ; _ ghows the name of S.K.Nair and not PW.8. Therefore,
- this serious infirmity in the prosecution case affecta the outcome of the trial itself. Learned trial Judge did not take note of this important aspect of the matter with & 4IGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA' HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH
-1€-
regard to the validity of the investigation conducted by PW.8.
26. Accused has also led the defence evidence ty . examining DWa 1 to 4 and learned trial Judge did not take note of the defence evidence which | is another"
serious defect in the, prosecution, case. The defence evidence reveals that, according to DW. 1, he executed agreement of sale in | favour of the 'accused and had taken Ks. 10, 0,000/- ae east money.
27. Dw. 2-Paremesnwwarappe deposed in his evidence that, he got Re. 3 lakhs from the retirement benefits and aerused approached him for monetary help | and therefore, DW.2 paid Rs.1,80,000/- to the accused oon 10. 2 2001 and algo said that the accused alsa
- executed the promissory note in favour of DW.2
28. DW. is another witness by name Jannappa, Who apeaks to the transaction between Mallikarjuna and the accused and the accused having paid Rs.10,000/- to Mallikarjuna. 'This witness has further deposed that one Parameshwarappa, a retired teacher iLGH COURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CO <i7- agreed to pay Rs.1,80,000/- to the accused with interest and the said amount was paid in the presence of ows
29. The aforesaid evidence of these three | witnesses have not been elucidated its "the " gpose. examination,
30. DW.4 is the accused. himself and he has deposed about the jpining of service jn i 1985 and his wife also working as "poet graduate teacher in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyolaya et Gajanur, Shimoga District and | she was getting salary of Ra.2 fOO/+ p.m. The aforesaid amount" which was. " secovered from the house is concerned, Dw. 4 has deposed that the amount of Re.4 7 lake » waa from his salary and salary of his wife and G GPF advance, bors and amount received from the Hubli Telecom Co-operative Credit Society. He also was deposed about the transaction between himself and Malikarjuna and having taken loan of Rs.1,80,000/- from Parameshwarappa apart from other loans, It is also deposed by him that, he signed Ex.P2 under oral protest. \.
' a 4IGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH: COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH
- 1B -
31. Thus the defence also has placed sufficient evidence to show that the wife of the accused was a post graduate teacher and earning ¢ certain amount. 'The ria | Ms, court in the course of its entire. Judgement has not referred to the defence evidence at all and hss 'ignored :
the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses DWs 1 to 4. While accepting the fact thet the wife of the accused also being a teacher and earning * scime s amount, the trial court did not give any allowance to the income of the wife of the accused while computing the excess in the hands of the accused. - ",
32. The. entire check period has been confined to Oe only one year and although Section 13(1 le] does not say
30. many words as to what should be the minimum period to be reckoned, the Apex Court in the decision
- ; referred to by learned counsel for the reapondent-CBI in ; the case of State of Maharastra vs. Pollonji Darabshaw
-. Danavalia (AIR 1988 SC 88) has held that though there can be no general rule or criteria valid for all cases in regard to the choice of a period for which accounts are taken to establish misconduct under Section S{i}e} (Old & ItGH COURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CO: -19-
Act 1947), the choice of the period must necesserily be determined by the allegations of fact on: which the:
prosecution is founded and rests. However, the period | * must be such as to enable the | true: and comprehensive picture of the known sources - of income 'and the : pecurary resources and property in possession of the public servant either t y hitree If or r through any other pergon on his behalf which ere alieged to be eo disproportons: e
33. in the said case, | the Apex Court has found that ¢ a period of 20 years cannot said to be incapable of yielding siic oh i true and comprehensive picture. Applying Os the aipresaid provisions in the case on hand, it is not s 'aaid tobe one year period would be sufficient enough to yield true. and comprehensive picture of the known ">. sources of income of the accused, particularly when the _ . gocused has put in 16 years of service in Central _ >. Government and the wife was working as post graduate teacher as is evident from the deposition of the accused himself and the observations made by the trial Court itself, | » 4IGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH- COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CQURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH
34. Since filing of the 'B' report has given a clean chit to the accused, so far as he being involved in illegal racket, the prosecution therefore oug, " to : have. | .
establish that the amount found with the accused WA actually in excess of the known sources of inoatne of the accused and his family. No such evidence : 18 'placed by the prosecution in tiris regard. The tr Hal court haa not considered the expenditure. of the 'accused and his family and what could have. een the savings of the accused ¢ ae & senior "officer in service apart from his wife's earnings. we
35. The trial court has questioned the accused in Oe 313 stetement and a lock at the statement recorded by ms 'he tial court goes to show that the learned trial Judge has recorded a bref statement of the accused and Ba hardiy 'eight questions were put to the accused and in | _ the said questions put to the accused, there is no indication as to what was the income of the accused from hie entire period of service or what was his actual expenditure and what was the assets and other properties held by the accused and his farualy and in the > 4IGH COURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CO
-2t-
absence of these materials being put to the acoused in 313 statement, recording of the statement in the: instant | case appears to be of formality and the tris! court did 1 - not apply its mind while Focoring, 'the accused statement by putting to hin, the inoriminaung matere} :
for being part of the evidence & on record.
36. Therefore, the avcused has been greatly prejudiced and the trial court also did not even ask the accused as- te 'the income of . the wife of the accused though 'if. 'the: course ot the judgment, learned trial Judge has accepted | that the accused wife was 4 teacher and was getting certain amount. Thus, the recording of oe the 313 statement is not in accordance with law. This '18. alto a 1 serious infirmity in the prosecution case.
A 37 . The settled question in law to attract the
- as charge urider Section 13(1)(e) of the Act as has been laid ~ down by the Apex Court in the case of M Krishna Reddy | vs. State Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad (AIR 1993 SC 313) is that, to substantiate the charge S a under Section 13(1}(e), the prosecution must prove the following ingredients namely:-
(i) the prosecution must prove. that the accused is a public servarit, . 7 a (u) the nature and extent. of pecumary | resources or | peoperty _#inch * were found in his possession, me (ui) it must be proved. as to what ¢ wae his known source of income Le » known to the prosecution, Se | (iv} ait nuuet. prove a uite objectively, hat 5, such resources: or property found in _ "possession of the accused were disproportionate to hus known sources afi income.
It is only wher all the above ingredients are 4IGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH. COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH : : 'satisfactorily. -proved, that the offence of criminal Tasconduht under Section 13{1e}) of the Act gets
-- completed. In the instant case, the prosecution has not " ggtablished all the aforesaid ingredients as mentioned earlier,
38. Thus, on careful examination of the evidence on record, I am of the view that the prosecution case L 4IGH COURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CO ~24- suffers from several defects and one of the important defect is the investigation itself being invalid on account of PW-8 having no proper authorisation. to conduct the | Ms, investigation. Secondly, the evidence docs not indicate what was the total income. of the aceured during the entire period of service and what was 'the i income of his wife and what waa. the sxpendivure ineurred by the family and what Was. the savings of the accused, The accused not fing the annual property réport is not a BETIOLIS defect in view of thie > accused still having time till the end of Dever 2001 to file his report.
30, That apart, as hes been observed by the Apex oe Court § in the case of Ashok Tshering Bhutia vs. State of % 'Sikkim (AIR 2011 SC 1363, non compliance of Rules will nist adversely affect the evidentiary value of = statement of immovable properties inherited, in the "instant case also, merely because there was no non S compliance of the relevant service rules, though as mentioned earlier, the accused still have the time to comply with the Rules before the end of December, 2001, the trial court could not have made much of the dK
--
HGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH said defect to hold that the accused was in possesion the trial court could not have convicted the appellant and as such, the evidence. appreciation by the 'court :
below is far from satisfactory and all the evidence on record, particularly 'the "defence "evidence was totally igriored by the trial}. court, Thevefore, the decisions referred to by learned Counse! for the res pondent-CBI are riot applicable te the instant case in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the nature of evidence tet in y the prosecution itself. I am therefore of the view that it i a@ case where the trial court ought | to have given, the benefit of doubt to the accused instead . of holding 'that the prosecution has proved its case . beyond all reasonable doubt.
40, Hence, the following order is passed:-
(i} Appeal is allowed and the judgment ef conviction and sentence passed by the trial court stands set aside.
& TIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CO
(ii) Appellant is acquitted of the ;
offences with which he was charged by ae giving him the benefit of doubt. .
(ii) The amount recovered. from the -
appellant and also the fine ameunt be refunded to him. _
(iv) His bail bond stands cancelled.
Sd/-
JUDGE Srl.