Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2022 (9) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 1549 - SC - Indian LawsApplication for discharge filed by the Appellant under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - whether the Appellant is entitled to be discharged of the proceedings initiated against him under the PC Act? Inclusion an amount of Rs. 55,000, recorded as the balance amount in the Appellant’s bank account during the check period - HELD THAT:- The difference in the figures was not explained by the Prosecution. Accordingly, the Special Judge (Vigilance) and the High Court failed to reconcile such a simple and straightforward inconsistency in the Prosecution’s evidence. It is opined that only an amount of Rs. 11,998, recorded in the Appellant’s Bank Passbook during the checkperiod as the balance amount, is validly admissible as expenditure under this head. Inclusion of an amount of Rs. 53,467 as expenditure towards repayment of the loan from the BSFC - HELD THAT:- The amount repaid towards loan instalments was already deducted from Appellant’s gross salary, and the deducted figure was recorded as the total disposable income with the Appellant during the check period. Hence, the loan repayment cannot be separately counted as an expenditure yet again. This is a glaring mistake. The Special Judge (Vigilance) as well as the High Court did not consider this objection on the ground that a roving inquiry is not permissible the stage of discharge. Inclusion of Rs. 1,58,562 as the value of the articles found during a search conducted in Appellant’s house on 21.02.2000, twelve years after the check period of 1974 to 1988 - HELD THAT:- There is nothing to indicate, even prima facie, that these articles found during the search in the year 2000 were acquired during the check period. In the absence of any material to link these articles as having been acquired during the check period, it is impermissible to include their value in the expenditure. It is opined that the Appellant’s objection about inclusion of this amount in the list of expenditure is fully justified. Unfortunately, even this objection, which did not require much scrutiny of the material on record, was not considered by the Special Judge (Vigilance) or the High Court. The Special Judge (Vigilance) was bound to conduct a similar inquiry for coming to a conclusion that a prima facie case is made out for the Appellant to stand trial. Unfortunately, the High Court committed the same mistake as that of the Special Judge (Vigilance). Appeal allowed.
|