STATE OF M. P. Vs. SHRIKANT DANDEKAR
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
State Of M. P.
Click here to view full judgement.
J.P. Gupta,J. -
(1.) This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicant Special Police Establishment Lokayukt Organization, Jabalpur against the order dated 29.1.2018 passed by the trial Court / Special Judge, Lokayukt, Jabalpur, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, whereby the prayer for acceptance of the closure report filed after completion of the investigation in connection with Crime No. 54/10 registered against the respondent under Sections 13 (1) (e) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt Organization, Jabalpur, has been disallowed and Special Police Establishment Lokayukt has been directed to place all the original documents / records and the material collected during the investigation before the Sanctioning authority for granting sanction for prosecution of the respondent the then Executive Engineer in Upper Narmada Zone, under the Water Resources Department, Jabalpur as public servant.
(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that this revision has been preferred by the investigating agency who initially started investigation against the respondent with regard to having possession of disproportionate assets in comparison to the known source of income and in this regard, check period was assigned from the year 1981 upto 30.7.2010 and after investigation, the income of the respondent was considered, which is quoted herein-below :-
Accordingly, the investigating agency arrived at the conclusion that after taking consideration of saving of the period before the check period which was Rs.15,197/- and the income during the check period from known sources which was Rs.1,38,95,366/-, the total income of the respondent was considered Rs. 1,39,10,563/- and during this period expenditure was considered Rs.1,39,59,093/-. Accordingly, difference of disproportionate property was found Rs.48,530/- in comparison to total income, which is less than 0.34%. While in view of the judgment of the Apex court in V. C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India,1996 AIR(SC) 48, 10% difference in comparison to disproportionate property may be ignored. Therefore, no case for prosecution of the respondent under Sections 13 (1) (e) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 is made out and the closure report was filed.
(3.) Learned trial court / Special Judge (Lokayukt) Jabalpur by the impugned order disallowed the prayer of the investigating agency for acceptance of the closure report and directed to submit material before the Sanctioning authority for granting sanction for prosecution of the respondent.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.