30,000 in April 1957, Rs.
1,000 in companyns and also 23 tolas of gold in September, 1957 with his wife, Smt.
On appeal, a learned Single Judge of the High Court set aside the judgment and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge and acquitted the respondent.
Sushila for Rs.
35,000 in cash and Rs.
The petitioner was accordingly put on trial for having companymitted an offence punishable under s. 5 2 read with s. 5 1 e of the Act, being found in possession of assets disproportionate to his income.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 9th April, 1975 of the Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench , Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No.
He held that the respondent had failed to account for cash of Rs.
He instructed him to divide the property into three equal shares among his three children.
Sushila, and Smt.
Hanumanthu owned a grocery shop.
28/1K and 28/1Dh in Chandrapur purchased 1 in the name of his wife, Smt.
21,210, papers relating to the building of a house at village Gondpipri built in the year 1965 at a companyt of Rs.
79,574.70 as against his only known source of income, namely, his total salary in government service amounting to Rs.
Sushila.
The respondent abjured his guilt and denied the companymission of the offence.
He further directed that the two plots at Chandrapur and the house at village Gondpipri be sold and the sale proceeds be forfeited.
The order of acquittal was based principally on two grounds 1 The prosecution having failed to discharge the burden of disproving all possible sources of income i.e. failed to account for the properties left by the respondents father in law, Haumanthu, he companyld number be companyvicted under s. 5 2 read with s. 5 1 e of the Act, and 2 it was number possible to exclude the probability that the property found in the respondents house companyld be the property left by his father in law, Hanumanthu.
21,210 in the name of his wife Smt.
Shakuntala, who on her marriage with the respondent was re named as Smt.
Sushila and the other jointly in the name of his wife and brother in law, Narayan and for the house built at village Gondpipri at a companyt of Rs.
The Special Judge, Chandrapur, by his judgment dated 7.6.1971, companyvicted the respondent for having companymitted an offence punishable under s.5 2 read with s. 5 1 e of the Act inasmuch as he was found in possession of property worth Rs.
26,870, sale deeds of the two plots purchased for Rs.
Sushila and his brother in law, Narayan for an amount of Rs.
Sushila, his sister in law, minor at that time.
He alleged that two of the sisters of his father in law were the kept mistresses of Raja Dharmarao and enjoyed special favours from the late Zamindar who bestowed on them large amounts of cash, ornaments etc.
They used to visit the house of his father in law, Hanumanthu, once or twice a month, and used to keep all their cash, gold and silver ornaments.
The respondent maintained that he was holding the property merely as a custodian and was number the owner thereof.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
He pleaded that his father in law died on March 10, 1958 at his house leaving behind his son, Narayan and two daughters, Smt.
10,000/ in August 1957 and Rs.
The respondent, Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar, was a Range Forest Officer, drawing a salary of Rs.
10,000.
26,870.
134 of 1971.
Govindan Nair, K. Ramavtar and K.R. Choudhury for the Respondent.
277 of 1976.
515 per month.
C. Bhandare and R.N. Poddar for the Appellant.
He and his father had a liquor shop besides forest companytracts.
44,000.
Hanumanthu used to deal in money lending business.
5,250 and Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN, J. The State Government of Maharashtra has preferred this appeal, by special leave, against the judgment of the Bombay High Court, reversing the judgment and sentence of the Special Judge, Chandrapur and acquitting the respondent of an offence under s. 5 2 read with s. 5 1 e of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 hereinafter called the Act .
On September 21, 1969, PW 71, Patwardhan, Inspector, Anti Corruption Bureau under authorisation from the Director, Anti Corruption Bureau, Bombay, carried out search and seizure at the residential house of the respondent.
He pleaded that he was leading frugal life and all the property found during the search of his residential house belonged to his father in law, Hanumanthu, pairokar of Raja Dharmarao, Zamindar of Aheri Estate.
The respondent alleged that his father in law deposited an amount of Rs.
5,250 and 2 in the joint names of his wife, Smt.
