KRISHNA KUMAR SACHAN Vs. U. P. LOKAYUKTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Dr. Krishna Kumar Sachan son of Jai Narain Sachan, resident of House No. 1, Nand Lal Chauraha, Govind Nagar, Kanpur Nagar is before this Court questioning the validity of the report submitted by the Lokayukta of Uttar Pradesh dated 27th June, 2013 with a further prayer not to implement the recommendations as have been made therein.

(2.) Brief background of the case as is reflected that petitioner has been elected as Member of Legislative Assembly (hereinafter referred as "MLA") for a period of five years in the year 2007 and it appears that he completed his tenure as MLA. One Archana Singh has filed a complaint before the Lokayukta under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta & Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred as "1975 Act") and in the said complaint dated 23rd December, 2011 specific mention was made that petitioner Dr. Krishna Kumar Sachan has misused his authority as MLA and along with the said complaint the complainant appended 29 sale-deeds which have been directly or indirectly executed to benefit the petitioner. As per the aforementioned sale-deeds in question the same had been executed in between the year 2007 to 2011 and in lieu of the same, sale consideration stamp duty for a sum of Rs. 1,04,64,490/- has been paid whereas the market value of the said property is Rs. 3,21,51,000/-. The allegations have come forward that petitioner has formed a society known as Gynaodya Shikshan Evam Manav Utthan Sewa Samiti and all the properties had been sought to be purchased in the name of aforementioned society, wherein his wife is the Secretary of the said society. On the said complaint being made, the complaint in question was registered under Section 10 (1) (a) of the 1975 Act. On the said complaint being made, copy of the complaint was forwarded to the petitioner and petitioner has submitted his reply on 2nd February, 2012. After the said reply in question has been submitted by the petitioner the complainant filed rebuttal to the same on 14.02.2012 and, thereafter, vide letter dated 30th March, 2012, various information had been asked for and in return petitioner vide letter dated 15th January, 2013, petitioner has submitted copy of income tax return in regard to himself and his wife and submitted that he has resigned from the society and is not at all in possession of the records of the society. Thereafter, in between 12.04.2012 to 01.04.2013, on nine occasions petitioner sought for time but never came forward with the specific reply in question, and petitioner at no point of time proceeded to submit full details of accounts maintained by the society and the sources from which properties have been purchased. Thereafter, the investigation in question has been concluded on the basis of evidence available on record and it has been found that petitioner has misused his official position and, accordingly, recommendations have been made by Lokayukta of Uttar Pradesh for taking necessary action, as per recommendations so made, and petitioner at this juncture is before this Court.

(3.) Supplementary affidavit has been filed in the present case and it has been sought to be contended that as per income tax return petitioner's income for the assessment years 2008 to 2013 goes to Rs. 3867414/- and the income of his wife for the said assessment years goes to Rs. 2279503/- and as per income tax return filed by the society, income of the society goes to Rs. 2688970/-. It has also been sought to be mentioned therein that the properties in question have been validly purchased through 29 sale-deeds and that some of the properties have been put to sale and income from the sale of three property nos. 1874, 1875 and 1884 situated at village Bag, tehsil Akbarpur, district Kanpur Nagar, arazi nos. 203 and 203 (N) situated at village Setupur, police station Akbarpu, district Kanpur Nagar, have not been included in the income of society and further property shown at Item No. 26 and Item No. 27 of the chart, are properties, that have been donated, their value should have been ignored and, accordingly, income assessed by the Lokayukta is incorrect and all these aspects of the matter have been ignored by the Lokayukta and, accordingly, no action should be taken on the basis of report submitted by the Lokayukta of Uttar Pradesh.