RAVINDRA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
State of Uttarakhand and another
Click here to view full judgement.
Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. -
(1.) HAVING heard Mr. Sarvesh Agarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kapri, Brief Holder, for the State, it appears that the petitioner was recruited as a Junior Engineer in the Minor Irrigation Department of Uttar Pradesh on 9.11.1983 and he opted his services for the State of Uttarakhand after the new Province carved out. When his house was raided in the year 2009, he had attained promotions up to the rank of Executive Engineer. In this service span of twenty -five years, it was found that he collected a massive wealth worth Rs. 1.18 crore to Rs. 1.28 crore which was disproportionate to his income. This was the amount of total estimated assets recovered from his house including the cash. The raid was conducted in the physical absence of petitioner on 17.2.2009. After investigation, the total assets were estimated worth Rs. 26,10,720/ - besides Rs. 54.70 lakh in cash, which were recovered from the house of petitioner. Thus, the chargesheet was submitted against him under the appropriate offences of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter to be referred as the Act). The trial court, vide the impugned order dated 19.9.2012, refused to discharge the accused/petitioner expressing its view that considering the entire material made available on record, there was ample material to hold that prima facie case was made out against the accused for framing charge u/s 13(1)(3) r/w Section 13(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the Charge was framed against him.
(2.) LEARNED counsel has argued that there is a huge difference in between the amount of Rs. 1.28 crore, which was subsequently downgraded to Rs. 26,10,720/ - as a result of the investigation. As far as the recovery of amount of Rs. 54.70 lakh, in cash, is concerned, learned counsel argued that the accused was having a plot in a prime location of district Dehradun admeasuring 566.56 square meters (677.50 square yards) situated in Mauja Kanwali, Central Doon, which was purchased by him in the month of June, 2000. Petitioner agreed to sell this land @ Rs. 17,000/ - per square yards to one Jai Chand R/o Pitthuwala, district Dehradun for a total consideration of Rs. 1.15 crore plus. The vendee gave the petitioner Rs. 55.00 lakh in advance in cash, which he was keeping with him at the time when his house was raided, and this amount was accordingly recovered. The agreement to sell has also been filed as Annexure 8 to the petition along with which the affidavit of Jai Chand has also been filed by way of annexure 9, ratifying the contents of the said agreement. Another argument, put forth by learned counsel, is that a sum of Rs. 55.00 lakh was shown by the Investigating Officer as an amount of expenditure whereas it was not so, rather it was a gain to the petitioner on account of agreement to sell entered into by him with the prospective purchaser of the land.
(3.) LEARNED State counsel has argued that there was also a Filling Station in the name of wife of petitioner, but this argument was refuted with the submission that the said Station was allotted to the wife of petitioner under the Scheduled Caste Category. Thus, it cannot be counted to be the income of the petitioner.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.