- (1.) ACCUSED -Manmohan Singh, who was convicted under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the trial Court has challenged the same before this Court.
(2.) ONE of the charges was that he had acquired property disproportionate to his known sources of income during the period 1985 to 31.10.1999, when he was serving as Naib Tehsildar at Gurgaon. As regards the scope of this appeal, suffice it to say, the prosecution has come out with an allegation that accused Manmohan Singh spent a sum of Rs. 8 lacs towards the construction of his house. But during the course of investigation, it came to light that the accused spent a sum of Rs. 4,31,158/ - for putting up construction of his house. Out of the said amount he could not account for a sum of Rs. 73,997/ -, which was spent for putting up construction of his house. In sum and substance, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused could not explain a sum of Rs. 73,997/ - spent by him for construction of his house.
(3.) THE trial Court having rejected the defence evidence held that the accused could not explain a sum of Rs. 73,997/ - spent by him for construction of his house. Learned senior counsel for the appellant -Manmohan Singh would submit that the Investigating Agency believed the version of the father -in -law of the appellant that he lent a sum of ' one lac to the appellant for putting up construction, whereas the Investigating Agency found fault with the mobilisation of Rs. 50,000/ - from Rajinder Singh and an equal amount from one Bijender. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant drawing the attention of the Court to the evidence of DW -2 Rajbir Kataria and the evidence of DW -3 Rajinder Singh would submit that the amount of Rs. 73,997/ - spent by the appellant had been borrowed from DW -2 and DW -3 for making construction of his house. It is his submission that the trial Court had not properly appreciated the evidence of DW -2 and DW -3 in the background of the admission made by PW -15, who was the Investigating Officer in this case. Therefore, it is the submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellant that the appellant who has explained the entire amount spent on construction, is entitled to acquittal. Per contra, learned State counsel would vehemently submit, drawing attention of this Court to the judgment passed by the trial Court, that the trial Court, having completely scanned the entire evidence on record, chose to reject the evidence of DW -2 and DW -3 and accept the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution. DW -2 and DW -3 had been brought before the trial Court by the appellant only to tow the defence set up by him. It is his submission that the trial Court has rightly rejected the defence evidence and convicted the accused.;