Telangana High Court
Sri S.Surender vs The State , on 9 August, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No. 1143 OF 2012
Between:
S.Surender ....Appellant
The State through CBI-ACB,
Hyderabad ...Respondent
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 09.08.2024
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see Yes/No
the Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment
may be marked to Law Yes/No
Reporters/Journals
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
wish to see the fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ Crl.A. No. 1143 OF 2012
% Dated 09.08.2024
# S.Surender ... Appellant
And
$ The State through CBI-ACB,
Hyderabad ... Respondent
! Counsel for the Appellant: Sri M.Venkanna
^ Counsel for the Respondent: Sri T.Srujan Kumar Reddy,
Spl.Public Prosecutor for CBI
>HEAD NOTE:
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1143 OF 2012
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section
offences under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act of 1988") and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years vide
judgment in CC No.13 of 2005 dated 31.10.2012 for holding
disproportionate assets amounting to Rs.6,48,000/-. Aggrieved by
the same, the present appeal is filed.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant was working
as postman in Musheerabad Post Office during the cheque period
from 01.05.1999 to 30.06.1999. According to the investigation, the
appellant was in possession of assets to a tune of Rs.7,320/- as on
01.05.1999. However, by 30.06.1999, A1 was in possession of
Rs.6,63,320/-. According to the prosecution, the income of A1 and
A2 during the cheque period was Rs.10,996/-. The expenditure was
to a tune of Rs.3,298.80 ps. Accordingly, disproportion was arrived
at Rs.6,48,302.80 ps.
3. Investigation was done only for the period from 01.05.1999 to
30.06.1999, since A1 deposited amounts i.e., Rs.2,04,000/- on
27.05.1999, Rs.2,04,000/- on 31.05.1999 and Rs.48,000/- on
04.06.1999 in Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) account. He also
purchased Kisan Vikas Patras (KVPs) in between 03.06.1999 and
04.06.1999 to a tune of Rs.2,00,000/-.
4. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) accordingly laid
charge sheet against both the appellant herein and A2, who is wife,
for disproportionate assets of Rs.6,48,302.80 ps. The entire case
rests on the MIS deposits and KVPs purchased, as detailed supra.
5. Learned Special Judge having examined witnesses P.Ws.1 to
12 and the documentary evidence Exs.P1 to P57 found that the
appellant was guilty of being in possession of Rs.6,48,302.80 ps.
However, the wife A2 was acquitted on the ground that she was not
a party to purchase of KVPs and deposits, though she has
consented to open MIS account. Rs.48,000/- was deposited in the
MIS account of A2. Learned Special Judge found that only for the
reason of depositing Rs.48,000/- in her name, that in itself will not
make her abettor of A1 for acquiring disproportionate assets.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would
submit that right from the beginning, the appellant has been saying
that the said amount which was deposited in the MIS account of
the post office and also the purchase of KVPs were from the cash
provided by his brother namely Srinivas. The appellant was
postman and the question of abusing his official position and
making such huge amounts within a period of two months does not
arise. The burden is on the prosecution to prove as to the illegal
acts that were committed by the appellant during discharge of his
duties as postman from which he has acquired the cash. In the
absence of the prosecution proving as to what are the acts done by
him to be in possession of such huge quantity of cash, the
prosecution cannot sustain. Consistently, the appellant has been
saying that the cash does not belong to him, but his brother. In the
said circumstances, the conviction has to be reversed.
7. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the
CBI submitted that though it was claimed by the appellant that the
cash belongs to his brother, however, his brother was not examined
before the Court to substantiate his defence. In fact, having
deposited the amount in MIS account and also purchasing KVPs, he
had obtained loan by depositing the KVPs in Andhra Bank. That in
itself would reflect the involvement of the appellant in making illegal
money and it is for the appellant to prove the possession of the said
amount.
8. It is relevant to extract Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
"Section 13(1)(A): A public servant is said to commit the offence of
criminal misconduct,-
(a)......
(b).....
(c).....
(d)....
(e) If he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any
time during the period of his office, been in possession for which
the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary
resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of
income.
Explanation:- For the purposes of this section, "known sources of
income" means income received from any lawful source and such
receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any
law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public
servant."
9. The provision under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act makes it very
clear that if a public servant is in possession of any properties that
he cannot satisfactorily account for to have been in possession with
known sources of income, it is an offence punishable for being in
possession of properties disproportionate to his known source of
income. Under explanation to Section 13(1)(e), the known source of
income would mean that the income should have been received
from any lawful source and such receipts should have been
intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, Rules or
Order for the time being applicable.
10. The purchase of KVPs and the amount deposited in the MIS is
not disputed by the appellant. However, he states that the amounts
were received by him from his brother. Once the appellant has
taken a specific plea that the amount belongs to his brother, he
ought to have summoned his brother before the Court and
examined him as witness in defence. The appellant has not taken
any steps to summon his brother. Further, he has not informed his
department regarding the amount that he received for the purchase
of KVPs and deposits made in to MIS account to the tune of
Rs.6,56,000/-.
11. In the present circumstances of the case, mere assertion that
the amount was received by the appellant from his brother would
not suffice. The burden is on the appellant to prove the possession
of the said amount and not vice-versa. The initial burden of proving
that the appellant was in possession of disproportionate assets has
been discharged by the prosecution by collecting the relevant
documents regarding the KVPs and MIS deposits. The said deposits
and purchasing KVPs is not disputed. As already discussed, mere
assertion that the amounts were received from his brother would
not suffice to discharge the burden placed on him under Section
13(1)(e) of P.C.Act.
12. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that it is
for the prosecution to prove as to the source of funds of the
appellant, totally runs contrary to law. In fact, it is the other way
round. The burden is on the appellant to prove possession of assets
disproportionate to his known source of income.
13. I do not find any infirmity with the finding of the Court below
and also the grounds raised by the appellant cannot be sustained.
However, the sentence of imprisonment of three years is reduced to
one year.
14. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. Since the
appellant is on bail, the trial Court is directed to cause appearance
of the appellant and send him to prison to serve out the remaining
period of sentence. The remand period, if any, shall be given set off
under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 09.08.2024
kvs
