Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 220 (HP)

STATE OF H. P. v. RAVINDER KUMAR

2004-09-14

K.C.SOOD

body2004
JUDGEMENT K.C. Sood, J. ((Oral).: (1) Cr M.P. (M) No. 166 of 2004 Heard. Allowed. Leave to appeal is granted. The application is disposed of. 2. Cr. Appeal No. 381 of 2004. Heard. Admit 3. The appeal is heard on merits at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Advocate General. 4. It appears respondent Ravinder Kumar was prosecuted for possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. 5. According to the prosecution case: The total income of the appellant including agricultural income for the years from April, 1982 to May, 1993 were Rs. 3,26,074/-, whereas he expended, during this period, in acquiring movable and immovable property and house-hold expenditure, Rs. 4,01,403/-. Thus, the spending exceeded by Rs. 75,329/- to the income during this period. The prosecution rely upon the statement of income and expenditure prepared by the then Inspector General of Police, Sohan Singh (Ex.PW-7/A). 6the statement of assets and expenditure (Ex, PW-7A) reads: CASE FOR NO/ 1/95 dated 2.2.95 U/S 327/384/423/218/120-B IPC & 13(2) PC ACT AND SEC. 64 OF INDIAN STAMP ACT, STATE OF INCOME AND EXPENDITURE OF SH.RAVINDER KUMAR DY.SJP, P.T.C. DROH FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.4.82 to 31.5.93. (A) ASSETS AS ON 1.4.82 AT THE TIME OF JOINING SERVICE. (A) Agricultural land 1 Bigha and 11 Biswa at (B) Immovable assets Nil NOTE: Movable and immovable assets were not declared by Shri Ravinder Kumar at the time of appointment as reported by S.P. Shimla (B) Assets As On 31.5.1993. IMMOVABLE ASSETS FROM l PURCH WHOM PRICE IASED REMARKS 1 2 3 4. (a) Set No. 9 Both Well Estate Sanjauli, Shimla. Shri Amrit Lal Sood & Family r/o Both Well Estate, Shimla 1 lac Rs. only VALUEAS INDICATED Insurance Policy No.403001/3602119/92 issued by National Insurance Co. Ltd. Shimla Policy obtained by Smt Vijay Sharma w/o Shri. Ravinder Kumar. (b) In the Sale deed Price has been shown only. Sh. Jagat Singh Chaddda r/o Sanjauli Rs. 50,000/-(Fifty thousand only). He was given Rs. 40,000/- at the time of registration And Rs. 10,000/-after. Total: Rs. 1.5 lac only (C) MOVABLE ASSETS (A) House hold Articles and baggage Rs.52,000/- only As indicated in the above mentioned Insurance policy. (b) Amount in R.D..Acctt Rs.5,900/- As informed by S.P.Shimla vide letter No. 30519 dt. 22.9.97. (c) Refund of Scooter Adv. With interest till May, 1993 Rs. 6,800/- -do- (d) Group Insurance Scheme Rs. 10,000/-after. Total: Rs. 1.5 lac only (C) MOVABLE ASSETS (A) House hold Articles and baggage Rs.52,000/- only As indicated in the above mentioned Insurance policy. (b) Amount in R.D..Acctt Rs.5,900/- As informed by S.P.Shimla vide letter No. 30519 dt. 22.9.97. (c) Refund of Scooter Adv. With interest till May, 1993 Rs. 6,800/- -do- (d) Group Insurance Scheme Rs. 2,320/- -do- (e)G.P.F. deposits. Rs. 38,665/- -do- Total: Rs. 1,05,685/- (D) INCOCME AND OTHER RECEIPTS DURING THE CHECKK PERIOD 1. Gross salary 3,21,723.75p. -do- 2. Agricultural Income 4,350.00 As per income certificate issued by the concerned Patwari (E) EXPENDITURE DURING THE CHECK PERIOD. ITEM AMOUNT REMARKS (A) Deduction on account of free travel facility 1.120.00 As informed by the S.P.Shimla vide letter No. 50815.dated 22.9.97 (b) Recovery of over 1.000.000 payment (c) Deduction on account of Police deposit fund (d) House Hold expenditure including Food & Misc. based On report No. 372 on the fourth Quinquennial survey released by Govt. of India. Extract received I From Economic advisor to Govt. Of H.P.). 108.00 1.43.490.36 D. -do- TOTAL: 1,45,718.36p. Say Rs. 1.45.718.00 (F)TOTAL EXPENDITURE DURING THE CHECK PERIOD IN RUPEES = (B)+(c) +(E) 1,50,000+1,05,685+1,45,718=4,01,403 (Rs. For (Sic-Four) lac one thousand four hundred and three only) (G)EXTENT OF DISPROPORTIONATE ASSETS IN RUPEES 4,01,403(-)3r26,074= 75,329 only. Sd/- (Sohan Singh) 7. The entire case of the prosecution is that respondent-accused spent Rs 75,329/- more than what his income during this period was. The only question of dispute is that as per the case of the prosecution that accused purchased Set No.9, Both Well Estate for Rs. One lac from Amrit Lal Sood. the accused maintained that he and his wife were the tenants of this particular Set The prosecution (fid not produce any evidence to show lest to prove that this particular property was purchased by the respondent or his wife or any other person on their behalf. 8. Surprisingly, Amrit Lad Sood, owner of this property, was not examined by the prosecution as witness. On the other hand, he appeared for respondent Ravinder Kumar as DW-2. It is his evidence that he was the owner of Both Well Estate, Sanjauli and that he never sold any part of Both Well estate either to Ravinder Kumar accused or his wife Smt Vijay Sharma. On the other hand, he appeared for respondent Ravinder Kumar as DW-2. It is his evidence that he was the owner of Both Well Estate, Sanjauli and that he never sold any part of Both Well estate either to Ravinder Kumar accused or his wife Smt Vijay Sharma. He was extensively cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, but without any tangible gain He is categorical in his evidence that respondent Ravinder Kumar and his wife were living in the Set in question of Both Well Estate, Sanjauli, as tenants since 1994. He also clarified that it is he who pays the house tax to the Municipal Corporation The prosecution made no attempts to get the ownership record from the Municipal Corporation which could have shown as to who was the owner of the property in question in the record of the Municipal Corporation. Sohan Singh, Inspector General (Vigilance) (PW-7) candidly admitted that there was no evidence to show that this particular Set of Both Well estate was purchased by respondent Ravinder Kumar. His evidence is to the effect that Ravinder Kumar was found residing in Both Well estate near Sanjauli In his own words, It was found by me during the investigation that accused Ravinder Kumar was residing in Bothwell Estate near Sanjauli. The said Estate was earlier known as Bothwell Hotel. The name of wife of accused Ravinder Kumar is Vijay Sharma........" 9. He does not say a word, not a whisper, that this particular Set of the Both Well Estate was purchased by respondent Ravinder Kumar Sharma or his wife Vijay Sharma. In cross-examination he admitted that a cancellation report was prepared, but was not filed in the Court He also admitted that he never recorded the statement of the owner of the Both Well estate, even though he had examined the owner during investigation, it is his evidence that he inquired from Amrit Lal Sood, owner of the Both Well Estate, about the ownership of the flat in which respondent was living, but Amrit Lal Sood did not give him any satisfactory reply. Later on in the cross examination he admitted that the flat in occupation of me respondent was "owned by Amrit Lal. 10. Later on in the cross examination he admitted that the flat in occupation of me respondent was "owned by Amrit Lal. 10. Surinder sharma (PW-9), who was the then Dy.S.P. (Vigilance) and partly investigated the case, does not say a word about the respondent being owner of any part of me Both Well Estate 11 Bishwa Nath Machhan, who was also the then Dy. SP. (Anti-Corruption Zone), appearing as (PW-10) stated that he inquired into the present case and submitted a closure report interims of Ex. DA In his closure report (Ex. DA) this witness noticed that none of the allegations made against the respondent is established to pinpoint criminal liability or any conduct on becoming (sic-unbecoming) of a public servant of the accused. It is evidence of this witness that during the course of inquiry he did not find any case of disproportionate assets to the known sources of income of the accused-respondent The FIR was registered on the insistence of the then Secretary (Home) Mr.S.N.Verma. 12. It is the evidence of Jitender (RAM), who lives in Both Well Estate, that Ravinder Kumar lives in Both Well estate, but he is nut aware of the capacity in which respondent lives in Both Well Estate. He was cross—examined by the public Prosecutor but he remained firm that though he was given to understand that respondent Ravinder Kumar was living in a set in Both Well Estate as owner, but this property could not have been sold m view of the restrictions imposed by the S.D.O.(c) of the custodian Department His suspicion arose as this flat was renovated by the respondent However he clarified that he did not know whether the respondent had renovated the flat or the same was renovated by the legal representatives of Pyare Lal Sood who earlier was owner of this property. In cross-examination on behalf of the accused, he categorically admits: "It is correct that neither the sad flat m possession of Ravinder Kumar was sold to him m my presence nor any agreement of sate was executed in his favour in my presence... No insurance of the flat occupied by Ravinder Kumar accused was got done in my presence by his wife Vijay Sharma". 13. So far the land sold by Jagat Singh is concerned, there is no dispute about that Even though Jagat Singh (PW-19) states that he sold the land for Rs. No insurance of the flat occupied by Ravinder Kumar accused was got done in my presence by his wife Vijay Sharma". 13. So far the land sold by Jagat Singh is concerned, there is no dispute about that Even though Jagat Singh (PW-19) states that he sold the land for Rs. One lac but received only Rs. 50,000/-. He admits in cross-examination that the sale deed was executed in favour of the wife of the accuse. In cross-examination, he admits: “1 was present before the sub registrar at the time of execution of the sale deed. I had admitted before Tehsildar (Sub Registrar) that the receipt of Rs. 25,000/- as full and final settlement as a sale consideration. I had not stated before the Sub Registrar that the sate deed was being executed by me under pressure or threat of the accused Mutation was attested on the basis registered sale deed but I (fid not object The sale deed was executed on 4.5.1993". 14.lt, thus, is clear that the accused purchased the plot form Jagat Singh for Rs 25,000/- even though is valued at Rs. 50,000/- by the investigating Agency. 15The evidence discussed above clearly shows that the prosecutor laid against-the respondent was not only unjustified and misplaced but also for extraneous reasons on the very face of the evidence collected by the prosecution. Even if we take die statement of Income and Expenditure misuses the amount allegedly spent on the acquisition of one Set in Both Well Estate) relied upon by the prosecution (Ex. PW-7/A) at its face value, by no stretch, it can be said that the accused spent and acquired assets more than his income during the period in question. According to me own case of me prosecution, as spelled out in the Statement of Income and Expenditure of the accused from 1.4.1982 to 31.5.1993, the total gross salary of the accused during this period was Rs. 3,21,723.75 paise, his income form agriculture was Rs. 4,350/-. His total income in all was Rs. 3,26,073.75 paise whereas, his expenditure during this period as spelled out was Rs. 4,01,403/- which includes me acquisition of Set No.9, Berth Well Estate, Sanjauli, Shimla for Rs. One lac. As already noticed, mere is not an iota of evidence to show that this particular property was acquired or purchased by the accused or his wife or any other family member. 4,01,403/- which includes me acquisition of Set No.9, Berth Well Estate, Sanjauli, Shimla for Rs. One lac. As already noticed, mere is not an iota of evidence to show that this particular property was acquired or purchased by the accused or his wife or any other family member. in fact as staled by the owner of this flat, the respondent and his wife were living in Set No 9 as tenants and not as owners. Therefore, if Rs. One lac is deducted from the total expenditure, as spelled out in the statement the total amount spent by the accused, according to the prosecution, including Rs. 50,000/- for acquiring plot from Jagat Singh comes to Rs. 3,01,403/- against the total income of Rs.3,26,074/- No case of disproportionate assets is made out against the accused by any stretch. 16. The acquittal recorded by the teamed Special Judge (Forest), Shimla, by his impugned judgment is not visited by any illegality or mi-appropriation of evidence. There is no merit m this appeal Dismissed.