Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. Another aspect of the matter canvassed by the learned Counsel for accused pertains to the value of the assets found in possession of the accused as detailed in Annexure-C. As stated above, the value of the assets held by the accused during the check period as per the prosecution version was Rs.16,10,470-80 ps. The Court, however, arrived at the value of the assets at Rs. 14,41,370-30 ps. The Court accepted partly the plea of the accused in regard to the value of his house purchased by the wife of the accused being item No.4 in Annexure-C. The prosecution gave the value of this house at Rs. 1,17,000/-. The Court found its value at Rs.89,000/-. Another item is in respect of batik balance of the accused. The prosecution set forth the value of this asset at Rs.3,33,335-95 paise but the Court found the value of this asset at Rs.2,19,159-17 ps. In respect of item No.10 in Annexure-C namely investments made with Shanti Enterprises on 1-4-1987 the prosecution set up the figure of this at Rs.25,000/-. The Court reduced its value to Rs.20,000/-. Another item relates to Recurring Deposits in Account No.45/84, dated 10-3-1983. According to the prosecution, the value of this asset was Rs.21,000/- but the trial Court has chosen to delete this item of asset altogether. In respect of item No.20 relating to the house-hold articles, the prosecution has presented their value at Rs.22,304-25 ps. But the Court has chosen to reduce it to Rs.15,000/-. After allowing these reductions the Court has arrived at the net figure of the value of the assets held by the accused at Rs.14,41,370-30 ps. as against the plea of the prosecution for Rs.l6,10,472-80ps.

15. In regard to the value of the gold it is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused that the prosecution has set forth the value of !he gold on the basis of market value on the date of the search which is totally unfounded. On the other hand Sri B. Adinaraynna Rao, learned Additional senior Standing Counsel for the CBI contends that in the absence of any plea on the part of the accused as to when that asset namely gold was acquired by him, the Court is left with no option except to assess the value of the gold on the basis of the market value as on the date of seizure.