http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  1262 of 2001

PETITIONER: N.P. Jharia

RESPONDENT: State of M.P.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/07/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P.P. NAOLEKAR

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  

Dr.  ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      It is a strange co-incidence that the Prevention of  Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ’Act’) was  enacted in the year of our country’s independence.

2.      Corruption is one of the most talked about subjects today  in the country since it is believed to have penetrated into every  sphere of activity. It is described as wholly widespread and  spectacular.

3.      Corruption as such has reached dangerous heights and  dangerous potentialities.  The word ’corruption’ has wide  connotation and embraces almost all the spheres of our day to  day life the world over.  In a limited sense it connotes allowing  decisions and actions of a person to be influenced not by  rights or wrongs of a cause, but by the prospects of monetary  gains or other selfish considerations.  Avarice is a common  frailty of mankind, and while Robert Walpole’s observation  that every man has a price, may be a little generalized, yet it  cannot be gainsaid that it is not far from truth.  Burke  cautioned "Among a people generally corrupt, liberty cannot  last long".

4.      Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned  Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur,  upholding conviction of appellant for offence punishable under  Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Act.  The trial  Court had while recording conviction sentenced the appellant  to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of  Rs.75,000/-.  The High Court reduced the sentence to one  year while maintaining the fine. With the modification of  sentence the appeal was dismissed.   

5.      Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows: The appellant was appointed as Sales Tax Officer on  16.9.1975 and he was occupying that post during the check  period 16.9.1975 to 31.12.1983. He was married to Pushpa  Jharia (D.W.1) in the year 1969 and he has three children. During the period 16.9.1975 to 31.12.1983 the appellant  was in possession of pecuniary resources and property worth  Rs.10,19,210/- as disproportionate to his known sources of  income. Proceedings were accordingly initiated. After  investigation the Special Police Establishment (in short ’SPE’)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

had submitted "final report" on l.3.1990 informing the court  that no offence is made out against the appellant. That final  report was accepted by the Special Judge on 17.4.1990. But  on 1.7.1992 the S.P.E. submitted an application before the  Special Judge for permission for further investigation. The  Special Judge permitted further investigation. Thereafter, the  sanction for prosecution was obtained from the State  Government on 1.3.1995. The charge sheet was filed in the  Court on 24.7.1995.

6.      Accused pleaded not guilty and his version was that he  had satisfactorily accounted for all the properties not only in  his own name, but also in the name of his wife.

7.      The Special Judge after an exhaustive and elaborate  consideration of all the documentary and oral evidence on  record came to the conclusion that the total income of the  appellant and his wife was Rs.9,32,086.90 and the  expenditure was Rs.18,81,745.81 and thus the value of the  disproportionate assets was Rs.9,49 658/- It was  further held  that the submission of the Final Report once by the  investigating agency was not a legal bar to make further  investigation and file the charge-sheet. It has also been found  that the sanction for the prosecution is valid and proper.

8.      High Court referred to the various items of expenditure,  the assets acquired, the sources and the incomes.  It was held  that the assessee had explained the income of himself and his  wife from the known sources for a sum of Rs.2,62,061/- while  the assets found were Rs.10,79,438/-.  Therefore the value of  the disproportionate assets was of Rs.8,17,377/-.  The High  Court held that in respect of certain items of income the trial  court was rather charitable but since the State has not  questioned the computation, the same was to be accepted.

9.      Accordingly, the conclusions of the trial court were  upheld and the appeal was dismissed except for modification  of the sentence.

10.     In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the  appellant submitted that the trial Court and the High Court  had erroneously held that the value of the assets found in  possession of the appellant was disproportionate to his known  sources of income.  The prosecution has not discharged the  burden that lay on it.

11.     Learned counsel for the State on the other hand  supported the judgment of the High Court.

12.     Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the  proceedings were initiated on the basis of complaint to the  Lokayukt and therefore the proceedings under the Act could  not have been taken.  It is to be noted that a faint plea in this  regard was raised before the trial court.  It was urged that  once the final report was submitted there is no scope for  further investigation.  It appears that after referring to the  proceedings the trial court found that there was no substance  in the plea.  Before the High Court such plea was not raised.  In the appeal also the main grounds relate to the defect in  sanction and legality of the further investigation.

13.     So far as the further investigation is concerned in the  background of Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal  Procedure, 1973 (in short the ’Code’) the plea is clearly  untenable.  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

14.     So far as the factual position is concerned various  sources of income disclosed by the accused were the salary,  the income of his wife and certain earnings from agricultural  lands of the family.  It was urged that before joining as a  lecturer he had earned approximately Rs.50,000/-.

15.     The High Court noted that the salary earned came to  about Rs.24,000/- and since he had to maintain the family   there was hardly scope for any saving and therefore any  availability of funds at the beginning of the check period has  not been established.  We find no infirmity in this conclusion.   The trial court had estimated the appellant’s income from  agricultural land at Rs.1,49,000/- from about 10 to 15 acres  of land.  The High Court rightly observed that the trial court  has been rather liberal in accepting  the income of accused in  the share of the joint family property on the basis of mere  assertion without any supporting material. Same could not  have been accepted.  But since the State had not questioned  the computation there was no scope for any further relief.  The  total income was taken to be Rs.2,38,561.95 which was also  not disputed by the appellant.  The trial court had noted that  even by  most liberal standards the appellant and his family  consisting of five persons could not have saved more than 50%  of the earnings of the salary and must have spent Rs.44,500/-  Therefore, the savings of the appellant from salary and  agriculture was taken at Rs.1,94,061/-.  Ms. Pushpa Jharia,  DW1 had deposed that she was doing the work of knitting.   The trial court without any supporting material fixed the  income at Rs.68,000/-. The High Court rightly noted that the  computation was on the liberal side. Only a small knitting  machine was found during search.  DW1 accepted that she  had not employed any other person for knitting, from which  she used to fetch between Rs.15/- to Rs.35/- per sweater.  Since the finding of the trial court was not challenged by the  prosecution the High Court accepted the amount fixed and  held that the appellant and his wife have satisfactorily  accounted for Rs.2,62,061/- from the known sources.  Though  a claim was made that DW1 used to cultivate land, same  was  found to be totally unacceptable plea by the trial Court, and  therefore the claim that Rs.32,000/- had been earned from the  said source was rejected.  Similarly, the plea relating to  availability of a sum of Rs.80,000/- on the basis of the  appellant’s father’s Will was found to be unacceptable as the  ’Will’ itself was not produced and the availability of  Rs.80,000/- with appellant’s father was not established.   Similarly, the plea that appellant had Rs.75,000/- from the  property of his father after his death was unacceptable.  There  was no material to substantiate the plea. Similarly plea of  having availed loans from relatives was not pursued before the  High Court.   

16.     So far as the valuation of the assets was concerned on  the basis of the valuation report (Ex.P.11) of the  Executive  Engineer (Valuation) of the Income Tax Department,   Jabalpur, the house was valued at Rs.6,91,000/- and  including the value of the land, value was fixed at Rs.  7,22,000/-.  Apart from that, cost of acquisition of a house of  five plots was added. Admitted cost of house as per Ext.P-12  was Rs.1,43,671/-.  The value of movable property available at  the time of search was fixed at Rs.1,22,283/-. The High Court  fixed it at Rs.80,000/-. Thus, the total value of immovable and  movable properties was computed at Rs.10,79,438/-. Both the  trial Court and the High Court have analysed the evidence in  great details so far as the valuation of the properties is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

concerned.  There is no scope for any interference in this  appeal so far as the valuation and the determination of the  disproportionate assets is concerned.

17.     Appeal is dismissed.