Holding

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and the determination of disproportionate assets as correctly arrived at by the trial and High Courts.

Summary

N.P. Jharia, a Sales Tax Officer, was convicted under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The trial court sentenced him to three years' imprisonment and a fine; the High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the term to one year. On appeal, the appellant argued that the prosecution failed to prove the disproportionate assets, that the valuation of his property was erroneous, and that further investigation after a final report was illegal. The Supreme Court examined the detailed findings on income, assets, and valuation, noting that the prosecution’s case was not contested and that the trial and High Courts had correctly applied the law. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and the assessment of disproportionate assets.

Issues considered

The prosecution must prove that the appellant possessed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Whether the valuation of the appellant's immovable and movable assets was proper and supported by evidence.
Whether further investigation after the Special Police Establishment’s final report was permissible under Section 73(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Whether the sanction for prosecution obtained from the State Government was valid.
Whether the appellant's declared income from salary, agricultural land, and his wife's knitting activity was correctly computed.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 73(8)
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947s. 5(1)(e), s. 5(2)

Subjects

corruptiondisproportionate assetsPrevention of Corruption Actvaluation of assetsburden of prooffurther investigationsanction for prosecution

Judgment

j-

A N.P.JHARIA
v.
STATEOFM.P.

JULY_ 30, 2007

B [DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.]

Prevention a/Corruption Act, 1947-s.5(l)(e) rlw s.5(2)-Pub/ic servant
possessing pecuniary resources and property disproportionate to his known
C sources of income-Trial Court convicting accused-appellant and sentencing
him to undergo imprisonment for 3 years-High Court upholding conviction
but reducing the sentence to I year-On appeal, held: Both Trial Court and
the High Court analyzed the evidence in great details-No. scope for
interference by Supreme Court.

D Words and Phrases-Word "corruption"-Connotation of

According to the prosecution, Appellant, a Sales Tax Officer, possessed
pecuniary resources and property disproportionate to his known sources of
income. He was convicted by the Trial Court under s.S(l)(e) r/w. s.5(2) of the _
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced to J years imprisonment
E High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to one year.

In appeal to this Court, it was contended that the prosecution did not
discharge the burden that lay on it and the Courts below erred in holding
that the value of assets found in possession of appellant was disproportionate
to his known sources of income.
F
Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: I. The word 'corruption' has wide connotation and embraces
almost all the spheres of 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
G rights or wrongs of a cause, but by the prospects of monetary gains or other
selfish considerations. (Para 3) (620-F, GJ

2.1. The High Court noted that the salary earned by Appellant came to
about Rs.24,000/- and since Appellant had to maintain the family there was·

H 618
N.P.JHARIAv. STATEOFM.P. 619
hardly scope for any saving and therefore any availability of funds at the A
.{ beginning of the check period has not been established. There is no infirmity
in this conclusion. !Para 15) {622-G; 623-AI

2.2. 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 B
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
c
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/-.
!Para 15) [623-A, B, CJ
D
2.3. DWI, the wife of Appellant, had deposed that she was doing the
r' 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. DWI 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 E
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 DWI used to cultivate land, same was found to be
totally unacceptable plea by the Trial Court, and therefore the claim that F
.> 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.8G,OOO/- with appellant's father was
not established. Simi:arly, the plea that appellant had Rs.75,000/- from the
property of his father after his death was unacceptable. There was no material G1
to substantiate the plea. Similarly plea of having availed loans from relatives
was not pursuet, before the High Court. IPara 15) (623-C, D, E, Fl

'
. .;:..
2.4. So far as the valuation of the assets was concerned on the basis of
the valuation report (Ex.P. t t) of the Executive Engineer (Valuation) of the
H
620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 8 S.C.R.

A In~ome 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 .....\. .J
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
B 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 detaiis so far as the valuation of
the properties is concerned. There is no scope for ariy interference in this
appeal so far as the valuation and the determination of the disproportionate
assets is concerned. [Para 16) (623-G; 624-A]
c CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal ~ppeal No. 1262 of
2001. .•
,
From the Judgment & Order dated 24.02.2001 o~i the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 1825of1999.
D
Amit Kr. Chawla and Sanjay R. Hedge for the Appellant.

Govin"d Goel, Sunny· Chowdhary and C.D. Singh for the Respondent.

·The Judgment of the Court was delivered by.
E DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J, I. It is a strange co-incidence that the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 194 7 (hereim:tfter 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
F 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 alimited sense
G 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. Avadce is a common frailty of mankind, and
while Robert Walpole's observation thatevery man has ~ 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".
H
N.P.JHARIAv. STATEOFM.P. [PASAYAT,J.] 621
4. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge A
/ of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur, upholding conviction of appellant
for,offence punishable under Section 5(l)(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 B
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 I 6.9.1975 to 31.12. I 983. He C
was married to Pushpa Jharia (D.W. l) in the year I 969 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. I 0, 19,210/- as disproportionate
to his known sources of income. Proceedings were accordingly initiated. After D
investigation the Special Police Establishment (in short 'SPE') had submitted
"final report" on 1.3.1990 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
pem1itted further investigation. Thereafter, the sanction for prosecution was E
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. F
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 G
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 H
622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 8 S.C.R.

A 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 oi' Rs.2,62,061 /-while the assets found were Rs. I 0, 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
B 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.

C IO. 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.

D 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
E 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 t~ial 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.
F
13. So far as the further investigation is concerned in the background
of Section ~ 73(8) of the.Code of Cr.iminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code')
the plea is clearly untenable.

14. So far as the factual pos1t1on is concerned various sources of
G 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/
H - and since he had to maintain the family there was hardly scope for any
\
_.
_
/

'
N.P.JHARIAv. STATEOFM.P. [PASAYAT,J.) 623
saving and therefore any availability of funds at the beginning of the check A
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. l ,49,000/- from about l 0 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. B
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.2,38,56I .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 C
and must have spent Rs.44,500/- Therefore, the savings of the appellant from
salary and agriculture was taken at Rs.I,94,06I/-. Ms. Pushpa Jharia, DWI
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 I
rightly noted that the computation was on the liberal side. Only a small
knitting machine was found during search. DWI accepted that she had not D
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.2,62,06I/- from the knpwn sources: Though a claim was made that DWI E
used to cultivate land, same was found to be totally unacceptable plea by
the trial Cllurt, 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 F
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. l l) of the Executive Engineer (Valuation) of the G
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. l ,43 ,671/-. The value of movable property.
available at the time of search was fixed at Rs. I ,22,283/-. The High Court fixed H
)

624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 8 S.C.R.

A it at Rs.80,000/-. Thus, th~ total value of immovable and movable properties
was computed at Rs. I 0, 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 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.

B 17. Appeal is dismissed.

B.B.B. Appeal dismissed.

.,.....•