Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.21 seconds)Ashok Tshering Bhutia vs State Of Sikkim on 25 February, 2011
"xxx When a statutory functionary passes an
order, that too authorising a person to carry out a
public function like investigation into an offence, an
order in person to carry out a public function like
investigation into an offence, an order in writing was
required to be passed. A statutory function must act
in a manner laid down in the statute."
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Jagan M. Seshadri vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 September, 2001
In the case of Jagan M.Seshadri Vs. State of
Tamil Nadu reported in 2002 Crl.L.J. 2982, it is alleged
that during the check period from 11.05.1977 to
31.03.1984, the appellant, who, at the relevant time, was
serving as a Superintendent of Police, had acquired assets
disproportionate to his known source of income. The
learned Special Judge, Madras, on appreciation of evidence,
acquitted the appellant of all the charges by a detailed
11
judgment. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal recorded by
the Special Judge, the State filed an appeal against the
acquittal of appellant before the High Court. The High
Court accepted the appeal of the State and reversed the
order of acquittal of the appellant and the appellant was
convicted for the offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with
Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The
accused by filing Special Leave Petition, has challenged the
order of the High Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held
on a careful perusal of the explanation given by the
appellant regarding the source of receipt of Rs.50,000/-and
Rs.40,000/- which amounts alone were canvassed to be
beyond the 'known sources of income' of the appellant and
find ample support for his explanation in the prosecution
evidence itself. The evidence of PWs.19, 27, 30 and 31
clearly support the explanation given by the appellant. The
appellant had thus, discharged the burden of explaining the
sources of those amounts. Their non-mention in the
property statement of the appellant would have no
12
consequence because explanation to Section 13(1)(e) is not
to be read as an explanation to Section 5(1)(e) of the 1947
Act.
M. Krishna Reddy vs State Deupty Superintendent Of Police, ... on 17 February, 1992
13. For the above proposition of law, the learned
Counsel for the appellant further placed reliance in the case
of M.Krishna Reddy Vs. State Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Hyderabad, reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 801
[(1992) 4 SCC 45]. In the above case, the accused is
charged for possession of assets and pecuniary resources
13
disproportionate to the known sources of income. The
prosecution alleged benami transactions. The appellant
claimed that value of certain items should be deducted from
the value of the alleged disproportionate assets and
substantiated his claim by producing evidence of income tax
and wealth tax returns submitted about a year before the
research conducted in the house of the appellant by Anti
Corruption Department. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held
burden of proof in disproving the claim of the appellant not
satisfactorily discharged by the prosecution, the burden of
proof lies on the prosecution for the alleged benami
transactions. Having regard to the totality of circumstances
and cumulative effect thereof, held, that the conviction and
sentence recorded by High Court affirming the judgment of
the trial Court cannot be sustained in view of the fact that
the appellant completed unblemished service of over 25
years.
1