TMI Blog1987 (11) TMI 373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 20,000. The High Court allowing respondent s appeal before it acquitted him of the charge. The State has come-up in appeal. 2. At the relevant time, respondent-Pollonji Darabshaw Daruwalla-was an Appraiser in the customs department at Bombay. He and several other customs officers were suspected of their complicity in certain offences, concerning export of stainless steel-ware to Hongkong. On 9.12.1968, Policeinspector (PW 34), armed with a warrant in this behalf searched the residential-premises of the respondent in the course of the investigation of that case. Though nothing incriminatory for purpose of that investigation was discovered; however, the search revealed respondent s possession of furniture, refrigerator, tape-recorder and cash of ₹ 7593 which were susceptible of the suspicion of the commission of an offence under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Act . PW 34, accordingly, obtained the requisite authorisation to investigate into this offence and after investigation, sought and obtained on 26. 10.1970 sanction to prosecute respondent. On 2.11.1970, the chargesheet was placed against the respondent for an offence under Section 5(1)(a) read ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ous years. In Chart No. II, the pay and emoluments which respondent was in receipt of, for and during the relevant period were set-out. In Chart No. III, the trial court has set-out the amounts of interest and dividends received by the respondent during the relevant-years. 6. The substance of the outcome of the exercise by the trial, in A relation to the total-income of the respondent for the relevant-period was referred to and summarized by the High Court thus: The total of all these items aggregate of ₹ 169736.69. It is urged on behalf of the State that out of this, estimated expense of ₹ 31,114.47 should be deducted because they were not available to the respondent to be accumulated as his assets. So the total sources available to him were ₹ 1,38,621.83. Referring to the total assets acquired by the respondent during the relevant-period and the extent of the disproportion, the High Court noticed the results of the findings of the trial court thus: It was urged that the total assets being ₹ 2,21,606.45, the assets of worth ₹ 827984.23 were in excess . 7. We have heard Shri Bhasme, leamed counsel in support of the appeal and Shri U.R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n all a sum of ₹ 77,215,03 could not be treated as the assets of the respondent and had to be deducted from a sum of ₹ 2,21,66.45. In other words, the High Court held that the value of the assets of ₹ 82,984.23 said to be in excess of and disproportionate to the known sources of income should be reduced by ₹ 77,215.03. Concluding, the High Court observed: 32. Now comes the question, whether a man after serving for 22 years from 1946 to 1968, on the prosecution own showing, is able to save ₹ 1,38,822 can it be said that the assets of ₹ 1,41,495 as observed by us, are disproportionate assets as required under Section 5(1)(e) of the Act. In this connection, in our opinion, the difference is so negligible that it cannot be said to be disproportionate . 10. Shri Bhasme for the appellant seriously assailed the reasoning of and the conclusion reached by the High Court on these points and more particularly on the points noticed at (a) and (b). Learned counsel submitted that the view of the High Court on points (a) (b) was manifestly erroneous and the High Court misdirected itself in law on these propositions. We are inclined to agree with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld have been in a better position instead of selecting the period of 1958 to 1968, it had taken the entire period service from 1946 to 1968 and given credit of the amount that he has earned against all the assets that he had collected. It is therefore difficult to understand why the prosecution has chosen the period from 1958 to 1968 .... 20. We have carefully considered this evidence of the Police Inspector but still we are not convinced about the selected of the period. We feel that the prosecution by selecting the check period of 10 years, when the accused had put in service from 1946 to 1968, i.e. for 22 years has done something whereby the chances of prejudicing the case of the accused are there 11. The assumptions implicit in the above observation of the High Court suffer from a basic fallacy. It is for the prosecution to choose what according to it, is the period which having regard to the acquisitive activities of the public-servant in amassing wealth, characterise and is late that period for special scrutiny. It is always open to the public-servant to satisfactorily account for the apparently disproportionate nature of his possession. Once the prosecution establish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deposits do not support the view of the High Court and lend credence to any doubts in the matter. Respondent virtually acknowledged his beneficial interest in the deposits in the course of his examination under Section 342. The view of the High Court on point (b) is clearly unsustainable. 13. However, these errors of approach and of assumption and inference in the judgment under appeal do not, by themselves, detract from the conclusion reached by the High Court that, in the ultimate analysis, the prosecution has not established the case against respondent beyond reasonable doubt. The discussion of and the conclusion reached on the contents and parts (c) to (e) by the High Court tends to show that the disproportion of the assets in relation to the known source of income is such that respondent should be given the benefit of doubt though however, on a consideration of the matter, if cannot be said that there is no disproportion or even a sizeable disproportion. For instance, Shri Bhasme is right in his contention that the acceptance by the High Court of the case of the alleged gift from the mother is wholly unsupported by the evidence. There are also other possible errors i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
