G.K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5 -11 -81 by which, the Special Judge, A.C.D. Cases Kota convicted the appellant Under Section 5(l)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to two years' RI and a fine of Rs. 15,000 in default of payment of fine, to undergo one year's RI.
(2.) IN the year 1971 a written report was submitted to the Chief Minister, Rajasthan State, Vigilance Commissioner, Director of Public grievances, I.C. Corrupt and the Addl. S.P. (Corruption) and Income Tax Commissioner by one Badri Lal. On this report some enquiries were made by the Anti -Corruption Department and after completing that enquiry the Police registered the case against the appellant on 13 -9 -73 and ultimately submitted the challan in the year 1978. According to the prosecution case appellant Tikam Lal and his family members had some property and on investigation it was found that they possessed property worth Rs. 56, 910/ -. This property was with regard to the period from 1 -8 -1959 to 11 -12 -72. It was also found that Chandra Kanta wife of the appellant during this period received certain amount by way of the house -rent, income from tailoring, loan from Co -operative Bank, loan from Hari Shankar and Sardar Mal. Thus, a sum of Rs. 29,064/ - was received by Mst. Chandra Kanta wife of the appellant. After adjusting this amount it was found that the appellant could not satisfy the Police Department about the assessment at Rs. 27,846/ -. After completing the investigation of this case and taking into account the income of the wife Smt. Chandra Kanta it was found that the appellant had disproportionate asset and in view of his income the appellant could not satisfy the Police he was prosecuted under Prevention of Corruption Act.
(3.) THE learned Special Judge framed charge against the appellant: Under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of P.C Act. The appellant did not plead guilty and claimed trial. He has denied to have the property worth Rs. 27,846/ -as disproportionate estate. The learned trial Judge did not agree with the contention of the appellant and after concluding the trial found that the case has been established against him and he was found guilty of the charges levelled against him and has been sentenced as mentioned above;