Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2023 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 1035 - HC - Indian LawsMisuse of political position by the Accused / MLA / Minister - acquiring disproportionate assets - Criminal conspiracy - misappropriation - criminal breach of trust - cheating forgery fraudulent execution of deed of transfer containing false statement of consideration amount - acquiring assets disproportionate to known legal source of income by Anosh Ekka - acquisition of lands in violation of C.N.T. Act in the name of his wife Smt Menon Ujjana Ekka - applicability of presumption under Section 20 relating to Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act. Assets - HELD THAT:- The evidence of assets acquired during the check period is not under challenge, nor in the name of which they have been acquired. The valuation of house has been disputed. There is no room to dispute the valuation of the land and flat purchased by registered sale deed or the vehicles and arms. Learned trial Court has given sufficient reasons for accepting the valuation report. The balance as standing in the bank accounts has also not been denied at any stage. Income - HELD THAT:- There was sudden surge of the assets in the name of accused Anosh Ekka and his family members after he became minister in the State of Jharkhand. The accused has failed to account for acquisition of the assets which were disproportionate to his known source of income. Prosecution has thus proved the charge under Sections 13(2) r/13(1)(e) of the PC Act against the accused Anosh Ekka. As far as the complicity of the other accused persons is concerned, as discussed above there is definite and clinching evidence that assets were acquired in the name of the co-accused persons namely Menon Ekka, Jaykant Bara and Deepak Lakra (appellants in Criminal appeal no.328) and Gidyon Ekka, Roshan Minz and Ibrahim Ekka (appellants in Criminal appeal no.327) . These evidence unerringly point to the active role of the appellant/accused persons in abetting the principal accused in acquiring disproportionate assets by the principal accused. A man is presumed to know the natural consequence of his act. To “aid” and “abet” means to help, assist, or facilitate the commission of a crime, or to promote the accomplishment thereof, or to help in advancing or bringing it about. The word “abet” includes knowledge of the wrongful purpose of the perpetrator and counsel and encouragement in the crime. It is to be born in mind that it is not necessary that an instigation should be only ‘words’ and may not be conduct - In the present case from the evidence of purchase of plots of land, flats, and vehicles in their name without any other lawful source of income during the check period are evidence to show that the appellants namely Menon Ekka (wife of Anosh Ekka), Jaykant Bara, Deepak Lakra and Gidyon Ekka, Roshan Minz and Ibrahim Ekka (brother and nephew of Anosh Ekka) of Criminal appeal 328 and 327 entered into a conspiracy, aided by their active role in commission of the offence of acquisition of disproportionate property. Judgment of conviction of these accused persons on the basis of Section 109 of the IPC for engaging in criminal conspiracy with the principal accused Anosh Ekka and aiding him in acquiring the disproportionate assets by different contrivances punishable under Section 13 (1)(e) of the PC Act is affirmed. Sentence - HELD THAT:- Under Section 13(2) of the PC Act,1988, before coming into force of 2014 amendment, the minimum sentence of imprisonment was one year and the maximum was seven years and the convict shall also be liable for fine. Further, Section 16 the Act of 1988 provides that where a sentence of fine is imposed the Court shall take into consideration the amount or value of property, if any, which the accused person has obtained or the pecuniary resources the accused person is unable to account for satisfactorily. Considering the crime test, criminal test and comparative proportionality test laid down Hon’ble the Supreme Court, the sentence of imprisonment and fine imposed to the appellant Anosh Ekka and Menon Ekka does not require any interference by this Court and is accordingly affirmed. The argument questioning the power of the trial Court to order confiscation under Section 452 Cr.P.C. does not merit consideration in view of the law settled by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. J. Jayalalitha, (2017) 6 SCC 263 at para 565, wherein it has been held that in the absence of any provision in the Prevention of Corruption Act, excluding its operations to effect confiscation of the property involved in any offence thereunder the trial Court had power of confiscation under Section 452 of the Cr.P.C. Disproportionate assets were acquired by the accused person by commission of offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and there are no infirmity in the order of confiscation of the disproportionate asset by the learned Court below. The Judgments of conviction and sentence against Anosh Ekka and Smt Menon Ekka is affirmed. With regard to other appellant accused namely Jaykant Bara and Deepak Lakra and Gidyon Ekka, Roshan Minz and Ibrahim Ekka the Judgment of conviction is affirmed with modification of sentence. Appeal dismissed.
|