Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 217 (JHR)

Dinesh Mishra v. State of Jharkhand

2011-03-17

D.K.SINHA

body2011
Judgment D.K Sinha, J.- This criminal revision is directed against the order impugned dated 6.9.2010, recorded by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in R.C. 3A/03(D) by which the discharge petition filed on behalf of the petitioner was rejected for the alleged offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Prosecution story in short was that during the check period from 1.4.1996 to 21.3.2003, petitioner acquired assets worth Rs. 50,67,065.51/- as against his legal income of Rs. 24,79,501.27/-. It was further alleged that the petitioner Dr. Dinesh Mishra during the period of check made an expenditure of Rs. 14,27,640.77/-, as such, his likely savings was found to be Rs. 10,51,860.50/- against which he acquired assets worth Rs. 50,67,065.51/-.The C.B.I. after investigation of the case found that Dr. Dinesh Mishra acquired assets worth Rs. 38,17,295.48/- which was disproportionate to his known sources of income and the acquisition of the same could neither be accounted for satisfactorily nor replied by him, so it was found by the Investigating Officer that the disproportionate assets earned by him were considered to be earned by corrupt and illegal means and hence, offence was attracted under Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was also obtained for prosecution of the petitioner. 3. Mr. Roy, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner was in possession of' 20 big has, 10 kathas' and 10 chtiataks of HUF agricultural landed property at Madhubani, out of which the petitioner had one-fifth share and that the share of his mother in the said property was also one-fifth. Her mother was wholly dependent upon him. The petitioner and his mother used to earn Rs. 25,000/- each, out of total agricultural income of Rs.1,40,000/- per annum as per the certificate issued by the Revenue Authority, Jhanjharpur, but the learned Special Judge failed to take into consideration and this' income was not considered for evaluation of the income of the petitioner during check period. Petitioner had constructed .his house at Kusum Vihar after obtaining necessary permission from MADA. According to the valuation report dated 18.3.2003, the valuation of the house was assessed at Rs. Petitioner had constructed .his house at Kusum Vihar after obtaining necessary permission from MADA. According to the valuation report dated 18.3.2003, the valuation of the house was assessed at Rs. 16,85,710/- being the total value but at that time only 90% work was complete, as such, value was shown- as Rs: 15,28,635/- and the balance Work of the value Rs. 1,57,600/- was completed thereafter. On the other hand, the C.B.I. has . shown the valuation of the house at Rs. 25,03,152/- in statement 'B' of the charge sheet in Serial No. 1 and arbitrarily enhanced the valuation of the house by Rs. 8,17,442/-. The wife of the petitioner was also an Income Tax Assessee and has got her own Permanent Account Number (PAN)' issued by the Income Tax Authority having her regular income. The C.B.I. had shown excess expenditure in Statement-D of the charge-sheet during the check period as Rs.14.,27,640.77/-, whereas it should have been Rs.11,46,335.77/-, thus an excess amount to the tune of Rs. 2.81.305.77/- was shown by the C.B.I. 4. Finally, the learned Sr. Counsel submitted that the entire allegation of the C.B.I. showing disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.38,17,295.48/- at Serial No.7 in calculation of the D.A. chart was misconceived and was calculated at inflated rate. Petitioner was not supplied with the entire police papers by the prosecution so as to prepare his defence, despite repeated directions of the Special Court, however, the petitioner presented his case by filing relevant documents showing his income from all sources including the income of his wife and mother, who have their independent source of income, but ignoring all these aspects his petition for discharge was dismissed. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Md. Mokhtar Khan, the learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I., submitted that the C.B.I. after investigation submitted a detailed charge-sheet giving the schedules of the income and expenditure of the petitioner and assets which he acquired disproportionate to the known sources of his income and therefore, materials were sufficient to proceed against the petitioner for the proposed charge under Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 6. Pointing out towards the impugned order dated 6.9.2010. the learned counsel for petitioner submitted that in the charge sheet the value of the land and cost of the construction which started in December 2001 was shown to be Rs. 6. Pointing out towards the impugned order dated 6.9.2010. the learned counsel for petitioner submitted that in the charge sheet the value of the land and cost of the construction which started in December 2001 was shown to be Rs. 25,03,15-2/- but the independent evaluation report given by the Executive Engineer, C.P.W.D., Dhanbad was much less. 7. Mr. Md. Mokhtar Khan finally submitted that petitioner's wife Smt. Nutan Mishra was having no independent source of her income and she was fully dependant upon the petitioner. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, I find that the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad by a {jetai1ed order rejected the prayer for discharge. of the petitioner and observed having been prima fade satisfied that the petitioner acquired assets movable and immovable worth Rs. 38,17,295/- which was disproportionate to his known sources of income and the acquisition of the same could neither be accounted for satisfactorily nor replied to the Investigating Agency. I find from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party-C.B.I. that during the period from 1.4.1996 to 21.3.2001 i.e. the check period for the calculation of the assets of the accused, the accused-petitioner acquired assets worth Rs. 50,67,065.51/- as against his legal income of Rs. 24,79,501.27/- and the petitioner during the check period made an expenditure of Rs. 14,27,640.77/- thus his likely savings was found to be Rs.10,51,860.50/- but he acquired assets worth Rs. 50,67,065.51/-and in that manner, the assets worth Rs. 38,17,295.48/- have been prima facie found to be disproportionate assets to his known sources of income as per charge-sheet submitted by the C.B.I. In the impugned order otherwise also, I do not find any illegality or irregularity so as to call for interference. There is no merit and hence, this criminal revision is dismissed, however, with the liberty to the petitioner to bring all the facts and materials by adducing evidence in course of trial. Let the trial be expedited.