5,50,152.08ps.
The charges were framed against the accused and prosecution examined 56 witnesses and marked exhibits P 1 to P.124.
On 27th June, 1986 he was in possession of movables and immovable assets worth Rs.4,01,454.58 disproportionate to his known source of income and did number give any satisfactory account.
The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.
What order?
P.C. The accused filed the written explanation.
However, he did number choose to lead any defence evidence.
4,01,454.58 Ps Whereas the said acts companystitute offence punishable under Section 5 2 r/2 5 1 e of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Act II of 1947 .
Whether the sanction granted by the authority is a valid sanction or number?
We heard both the learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the accused Sri C.S. Krishnamurthy, Technical Supervisor, Bangalore Telephones, Bangalore was charge sheeted for the offence under Section 5 2 read with Section 5 1 e of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act alleging that during the period from May 25, 1964 to June 27, 1986 he acquired assets disproportionate to his known source of income.
Whereas it has been made to appear that the total expenditure incurred by the said Shri C.S. Krishnamurthy in the above said period from 25.5.1964 to 25.6.1986 was Rs.
He was promoted as Technical Supervisor and was working with Bangalore Telephone.
4,01,454.58 Ps.
This sanction order was proved by Mr. V. Parthasarthy, Deputy General Manager of Bangalore Telecom as PW 40, he was companypetent authority to accord sanction and he accorded the sanction for prosecution of accused for the alleged offence on 28th February, 1990 as per Ex.
9,51,606.66Ps.
Learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, after examining the evidence came to the companyclusion that the sanction accorded by the prosecution is valid and set aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge and remitted the matter back to the Special Judge, CBI, Bangalore to register the case and to decide the matter afresh after hearing both the parties.
2,41,382.85Ps.
only against which has had been found in possession of total assets both movable and immovable to the tune of Rs.
No.4330/2004 K. MATHUR, J. Leave granted.
4,01,454.58 Ps.
And whereas, I, V. Partha Sarthy being the authority companypetent to remove Shri C.S. Krishnamurthy from office after fully and carefully examining the materials placed before me in regard to the said allegations and circumstances of this case, companysider that the said Shri C.S. Krishnamurthy should be prosecuted in a Court of Law for the said offences.
9,51,606.66 ps.
Whole case depends upon the sanction.
Whereas it has been, made to appear that the total assets both movable and immovable acquired by the said Shri C.S. Krishnamurthy during the check period from 25.5.1964 to 27.6.1986 amounted to Rs.
Aggrieved against the order, an appeal was presented by the CBI to the High Court.
Aggrieved against this order of the learned Single Judge, the present appeal has been preferred by the accused.
Whereas it has been made to appear that the total income earned by the said Shri C.S. Krishmurthy from all known sources between the period 25.5.1964 to 27.6.1986 is Rs.
Whereas it has been made to appear that the said Shri C.S.Krishnamurthy during the entire period of his service as a public servant have likely savings to the tune of Rs.
The income was from salary, GPF advances, the Rental income, the interest amount received from Bank accounts, the loan amount received from LIC towards house companystructions, the dividend income, interest amount and gain in respect of chits received from Navyodaya Sahakara Bank, Vyyalikaval House Building, Co operative Society, Vishalam Chit Funds and Reliance Industries, loan received from friends and family members, gain towards sale of scooter car, sale proceeds of jewellery and income received by family members.
Arising out of SLP Crl.
608 of 1998 whereby learned Single Judge by his order dated June 10, 2004 has allowed the appeal of State and set aside the order of the XXI Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI at Bangalore City whereby he acquitted the appellant accused under Section 5 2 read with Section 5 1 e of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 on the ground of sanction being invalid in CC No.
Which are disproportionate to his known source of income suggesting that the said Sri.
This appeal is directed against an order passed by learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No.
The extent of disproportionate assets possessed by Shri S. Krishnamurthy as on 27.6.1986 companyes to Rs.
Now, therefore, I V. Partha Sarthy do hereby accord sanction under Section 6 1 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 Act II of 1947 for the Prosecution of the said Shri C.S. Krishnamurthy for the said offences and any other offences punishable under other provisions of Law in respect of the said offences by a Court of companypetent jurisdiction.
On that basis the trial companymenced.
7, 91,534.93Ps.
Learned Special Judge acquitted the accused and held that there was numberproper sanction.
The CBI, Bangalore City, after companypletion of the investigation filed charge sheet against the accused.
Whereas the above said allegation is based on the following facts and circumstances Shri C.S. Krishnamurthy joined the Telephone Department as Telephone Mechanic on 25.5.1964.
Which were disproportionate to his known source of income for which he companyld number give satisfactory account?
