STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. LAXMI NARSIMHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Special Criminal Case No. 2 of 1972 the Special Judge, Nagpur, found the respondent Laxmi Narsimham son of Brahmaniah Vuppala, a public servant, not guilty for the charge framed under section 5(1)(e) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (No. 2 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for which he was tried. After hearing the evidence, the learned Judge recorded the judgment of acquittal holding that the accused is shown to be in possession of assets of the value of Rs. 1,00,862.17 (Appendix I to the judgment). He further found that the expenditure of the accused is shown to be Rs. 57,433.85 (Appendix III to the judgment) as against the total receipt of the accused to the tune of Rs. 1,66,712.02 (Appendix II to the judgment). For the purpose of Appendix I, the learned Judge has taken the period mentioned in the charge, being from 25-11-1955 to 3-9-1969, while for the purpose of the other two appendices which are a part of the judgment, the learned Judge has taken the period from 28-9-1953 to 3-9-1969. The charge framed in the present case had put the accused to trial by taking into account the assets for the period between 1955 to 1969 as against the receipts and expenditure between the period 1953 to 1969. Ex. 18, the charge, refers to these periods. Presumably the periods have been taken into account on the basis of the sanction order produced and proved during the trial at Ex. 27. The prosecution tendered evidence of several witnesses to whom reference will be made as and when necessary. As against that, the accused filed his statement of account when he was examined during the trial and which was produced at Ex. 1251. He further examined witnesses in defence.

(2.) The State complains by this appeal that the acquittal of the accused was not warranted by the facts and circumstances brought on record and even under the law. Initially the case of the prosecution had been that during the period 1953 to 1969 the accused was in receipt of Rs. 1,23,618.95. This included the items of receipt by the accused from his salary, house rent, interest, dividends, loans received, sale proceeds, profits realised, earnest monies realised, amounts realised by sale of movables like gold, amounts borrowed from relatives and outsiders, amounts borrowed from the Central Railway Employees' Co-operative Bank or against insurance policies and other receipts of ex-gratia amounts from father, brother or nephew. On the basis of this income or receipt, the prosecution case had been that the accused had in his or his wife's possession unexplained surplus of Rs. 49,000. For the purpose of calculating the surplus, the prosecution relied on the fact that the accused had an expenditure to the tune of Rs. 62,775.23 and had pecuniary resources and property valued at Rs. 1,10,123.32 as on 3-9-1969. It may be stated that by Ex. 1251 the accused claimed that his total receipt from all sources was Rs. 2,01 490 02 his assets being of the value of Rs. 98,838.92 and the expenditure of Rs. 54 123 34 Thus, as against the unexplained excesses alleged by the prosecution the accused asserted that he had excess receipt of about Rs. 48,000. Between these two competing cases, by the impugned judgment substantially the learned Judge has found in favour of the accused and recorded a finding that the accused had excess receipt over and above the assets and expenditure.

(3.) It is pertinent to observe at the outset that during the trial no effort was made to progressively find out the account of the accused which would have projected a clear picture of the financial position of the accused. In this Court both the parties have tried to indicate how the accounts would stand from year to year, the most crucial of the items being that of the receipts. As there is a finding of excess receipt in the hand of the accused, the relevant aspect for the decision of this appeal eventually would be the validity of the finding of the receipts as recorded by the learned Special Judge.