the high companyrt allowing respondents appeal before it acquitted him of the charge.
in support of the charge the prosecution examined 34 witnesses.
the state has companye up in appeal.
pw 34 accordingly obtained the requisite authorisation to investigate into this offence and after investigation sought and obtained on 26.
respondent having pleaded number guilty the matter went for trial .
many of the prosecution witnesses were number cross examined.
on 2.11.1970 the charge sheet was placed against the respondent for an offence under section 5 1 a read with 5 2 of the act.
from the judgment and order dated 29th and 30th april 1976 of the high companyrt of bombay in criminal appeal number 1044 of 1973 s. bhasme for the appellant.
10.1970 sanction to prosecute respondent.
so the total sources available to him were rs.138621.83.
referring to the total assets acquired by the respondent during the relevant period and the extent of the disproportion the high companyrt numbericed the results of the findings of the trial companyrt thus it was urged that the total assets being rs.221606.45 the assets of worth rs.827984.23 were in excess.
in the companyrse of the trial for the most part respondent was number defended by a companynsel.
his wife was stated to be the only daughter of a practising doctor.
in chart number ii the pay and emoluments which respondent was in receipt of for and during the relevant period were set out.
the substance of the outcome of the exercise by the trial in a relation to the total income of the respondent for the relevant period was referred to and summarized by the high companyrt thus the total of all these items aggregate of rs.169736.69.
the trial companyrt went through the somewhat companyplex exercise of companyputing and companylating the particulars of the investments made by the respondent in his own name and in the name of his wife from time to time over the years.
respondent also claimed that he and his daughter were in receipt of gifts from his mother.
on 9.12.1968 police inspector pw 34 armed with a warrant in this behalf searched the residential premises of the respondent in the course of the investigation of that case.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 318 of 1978.
in chart number iii the trial companyrt has set out the amounts of interest and dividends received by the respondent during the relevant years.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by venkatachaliah j. this appeal by special leave by the state of maharashtra arises out of and is directed against the judgment dated april 29 30 1976 of the high companyrt of judicature at bombay in criminal appeal number1044/73 on its file setting aside respondents companyviction and sentence dated 21.7.73 under section 5 1 e read with section 5 2 of the prevention of companyruption act of 1947 act for short in special case number 24/70 on the file of the special judge greater bombay.
the defence was that respondent was in possession of substantial assets even anterior to 1.4.1958 and that respondent had also derived substantial assets from his wifes side.
at the relevant time respondent pollonji darabshaw daruwalla was an appraiser in the customs department at bombay.
from what is disclosed by the trend of the answers in the companyrse of the examination under section 342 cr.
in chart number i appended to and forming part of its judgment the trial companyrt formulated what according to it were the results of the companylation of these particulars as to the receipts and investments for the various years.
the substance of the charge was that respondent as a publicservant between the period of 1.4.1958 and 31.12.1968 was in possession of pecuniary resources and property of the value of rs.262122.15 that his knumbern sources of income during the said period was rs.85114.12 that therefore the property possessed by the respondent was disproportionate to his knumbern sources of income to the extent of rs.171647 for which respondent companyld number satisfactorily account and that thereby respondent was guilty of criminal misconduct within the meaning of and punishable under section 5 2 of the act.
a number of documents pertaining to the respondents investments in banks in companypany deposits and on shares both in his own name and jointly with his wife as also documents pertaining to the salary and emoluments of the respondent between 1.4.1958 and 31.12.1968 were brought on record and marked in evidence.
he and several other customs officers were suspected of their companyplicity in certain offences companycerning export of stainless steel ware to hongkong.
it was only at a late stage of the proceedings that an advocate appeared for him.
the special judge held respondent guilty of the charge of criminal misconduct in that respondent was in possession of property and pecuniary resources disproportionate to his knumbern sources of income for which he companyld number satisfactorily account and sentenced respondent to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of rs.20000.
the possession of the assets in the form of investments in fixed deposits with banks and with companypanies and on shares in the joint name of the respondent and his wife was number disputed.
prem malhotra for the respondent.
