Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2015 (3) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 1426 - SC - Indian LawsBribe - possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income - High Court took the view that Rules 14, 17 and 19 of the M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 prohibit the public servant from accepting gifts or loan except in the manner prescribed therein - HELD THAT:- The expression “known sources of income” in Section 13(1) (e) of the Act has two elements, first the income must be received from a lawful source and secondly the receipt of such income must have been intimated in accordance with the provisions of law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to the public servant. In N. Ramakrishnaiah [2008 (10) TMI 728 - SUPREME COURT], while dealing with said expression, it was observed that For the public servant, whatever return he gets of his service, will be the primary item of his income. Other income which can conceivably be income qua the public servant will be in the regular receipt from (1) his property, or (b) his investment. In the instant case, every single amount received by the appellant has been proved on record through the testimony of the witnesses and is also supported by contemporaneous documents and intimations to the Government. It is not the case that the receipts so projected were bogus or was part of a calculated device. The fact that these amounts were actually received from the sources so named is not in dispute. Furthermore, these amounts are well reflected in the Income Tax Returns filed by the appellant. In similar circumstances, the acquisitions being reflected in Income Tax Returns weighed with this court in granting relief to the public servant. In D.S.P Chennai Vs. K. Ibasagarain [2005 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT], the fact that the money was treated in the hands of the wife of the public servant and that she was assessed by the Income Tax Department was taken note of while accepting the explanation given by the public servant. There is no violation of Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. The judgment and order in appeal is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him - Appeal allowed.
|