It was submitted that every such receipt was duly intimated by him to the department.
Furthermore, he took a loan of Rs.75,000/ from M S Radhaballabh Dal Mills, a companypany in which PW 5 Gopal Agarwal his brother was a partner and the loan was given through a cheque.
After companyducting appropriate investigation chargesheet was filed and the appellant was accordingly charged and tried.
58 of 2006 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment of companyviction recorded by the Special Judge Prevention of Corruption Act Shiv Puri, Madhya Pradesh in Special Sessions Trial No.
The appellant had thus intimated the department on every occasion that he received any advance or gifts or share in partition or entitlement by way of bequest.
In 1987, in terms of the family partition that took place, an amount of Rs.1,45,000/ was agreed to be given to the appellant by his father.
On 17.01.1991 the mother of the appellant passed away leaving behind a will under which the appellant received an amount Rs.50,672/ which fact was intimated to the Department vide letter dated 14.11.1991.
In the year 1988 1989, the appellant had applied for a companystruction loan which had number been sanctioned by the Department till then.
4 of 1996 against the appellant herein.
The details being On 09.09.1988 and 01.04.1989 he received gifts in cash of the amounts Rs.20,000/ and Rs.15,000/ from his brother PW 7 Brij Narayan and on 03.12.1988 and 10.04.1989 he received gifts of Rs.20,000/ and Rs.15,000/ in cash from his other brother PW5 Gopal Agarwal.
Accordingly Crime No.
The High Court thus affirmed the view taken by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal companyfirming the sentence.
During the pendency of this appeal, this companyrt was pleased to direct the release of the appellant on bail.
The companyrectness of the judgment passed by the High Court is challenged in this appeal by Special Leave.
Appearing in support of the appeal, Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel submitted that every receipt of amount was duly intimated by the appellant to the department companytemporaneously and such amounts were also reflected in his Income Tax Report, filed well before the initiation of the prosecution in the instant case.
To ensure companytinuous companystruction work, he took loans or received gifts from his close relative, details of which were reflected in his letter to the department dated 15.12.1989.
In the year 1993, in order to purchase a gun, the appellant took a loan of Rs.10,000/ from his brother in law PW1 Kapoor Chand which fact was intimated by him to the Department vide letter dated 15.03.1993.
Copy of the Income Tax Return was also filed with the department on 5.01.1994, well before the present F.I.R. was filed on 9.02.1994.
The High Court held disclosure of receipt of money in the Income Tax Returns was of numberassistance to the appellant unless the Rules were duly companyplied with.
The balance amount was remitted to the appellant vide two Bank Drafts of Rs.45,000/ and Rs.40,000/ and the same was intimated to the Department vide letter dated 14.11.1991.
According to the prosecution, during the period of 15.07.1978 to 9.02.1994, the appellant had earned total amount of Rs.3,86, 966/ as public servant but he was found to be in possession of assets worth Rs.7,97,243/ at the end of that period and as such he was in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the tune of Rs.4,08,077/ .
In the year 1987, the appellant wanted to purchase a plot of land, for which he took a loan of Rs.20,000/ from PW 6 Ramji Lal Agarwal, a friend and resident of the same area, which was intimated to the Department vide letter dated 03.09.1987.
The father of the appellant gave an amount of Rs.60,000/ which was intimated by him to his Department vide letter dated 10.05.1987.
The prosecution in support of its case examined 10 witnesses.
The defence of the appellant was that On the occasion of his marriage he had received gifts from his in laws, ii he had received certain sums as and by way of his share in family partition, iii he had received bequest under the will executed by his mother, and iv he had taken loan or advances for purchase of plot and companystruction from his relations and friends.
The details of such receipt and intimation as submitted, are as under On 16.04.1984, the appellant got married and had received gifts from his in laws such as Fridge, Colour TV, Sofa Set, Almirah, which fact was intimated to the Department vide letter dated 25.04.1984.
The appellant submitted that if these amounts which were duly intimated and stood reflected in his Income Tax Returns were to be taken into account, the alleged disproportionate assets would number be to the tune of Rs.4,08,077/ but would stand reduced to the sum of Rs.37,605/ .
The appellant joined the services of Public Health Engineering Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh on 15.07.1978 as Assistant Engineer and thereafter served in various capacities.
17 of 1994 was registered on 9.02.1994 by the Special Police Establishment, Lokayukta Sanghthan for the offence punishable under Section 13 1 e read with Section 13 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 the Act, for short .
These facts are spoken to by various prosecution witnesses.
Moreover, the appellant had filed his Income Tax Return on 28.09.1992, which clearly reflected the details of the loan transactions and the amounts that he had received.
While dealing with Criminal Appeal preferred by the appellant, the High Court took the view that Rules 14, 17 and 19 of the M.P. Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1965 the Rules for short prohibit the public servant from accepting gifts or loan except in the manner prescribed therein.
Uday Umesh Lalit, J. This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 16.12.2010 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No.
