N. SRIMANNARAYANA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1471 of 2001, dated 04.03.2008. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has confirmed the judgment of conviction but modified the sentence passed by the Trial Court for the offence punishable Under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short, "the Act"). The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 03.05.1957 the Appellant joined Government service as Junior Engineer, Irrigation Department, Andhra Pradesh. Subsequently, he was promoted as Assistant Engineer and thereafter as Executive Engineer in the R & B Department. On credible information that the Appellant had acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income through corrupt practices, a case was registered against him on 28.02.1987. After due verification and authorization, investigation was conducted. It was found that the Appellant was in possession of assets of the value of Rs. 12,73,714.91/- disproportionate to his known sources of income and had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for possession of disproportionate assets. Upon the completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the Trial Court.

(2.) Thereafter, the Appellant appeared before the Trial Court and after both sides were heard, charges were framed against the Appellant for the offence punishable Under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Act. The charges were read over and explained to the Appellant who pleaded not guilty. Accordingly, the case was committed to Trial.

(3.) In order to substantiate the charges framed against the Appellant, the prosecution examined 76 witnesses and presented 137 documents. After the completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded Under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code") and thereafter 24 witnesses were examined and 31 documents were produced in defense evidence.