- (1.) The State is aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.07.2008 passed by Sessions Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act Cases), Bikaner, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the accused respondent, Mohanlal, for offences under Sections 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('the Act', for short). Briefly, the facts of the case are that Mohanlal Wadhwa was posted as Superintending Engineer, Narmada Project at Jalore. On 22.11.1996, he was allegedly caught accepting a bribe of Rs.9,500/-. Thereafter, the ACB department carried out a raid at his residential premises situated at 18, Vinoba Basti, Sri Ganganagar and also seized his bank lockers. After tallying the incriminating evidence, it was discovered that he had more money than his known source of income. According to the ACB Department, although the known source of income would total upto Rs.23,81,913/-, but if all his properties and expenditure were calculated, then the total amount would come to Rs.31,24,658/-. Thus, the accused-respondent had more than Rs.7,42,745/- than his known source of income. On the basis of investigation, a chargesheet was filed against accused-respondent for offences under Sections 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Act.
(2.) In order to support its case, the prosecution examined twenty-five witnesses, and submitted a few documents. In his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C., the accused-respondent stated that he was appointed in the service in 1964, and continued to work till 1996. According to him, his income for twenty-five months was not taken into account. At the relevant time, he was paid Rs.32,000/- per month. Moreover, while six policies were taken into account, his seventh insurance policy, worth Rs.12,769/-, was not taken into account. Similarly, the income that he derived from firm M/s. Munshilal & Sons was ignored. Likewise, the income he derived from the investments made at Post-office as well as the income that he derived from shares was also ignored. Therefore, he questioned the excess income shown against him. In order to further buttress his case, he examined three witnesses. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment dated 26.07.2008, the learned Judge acquitted the accused-respondent for the aforementioned offences. Hence, this criminal leave to appeal before this Court.
(3.) Mr. O.P. Singaria, the learned Public Prosecutor, has vehemently contended that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. Therefore, the learned Judge has erred in acquitting the accused respondent.;