VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 526
939
The trial court convicted the appellant under sec. 13(1)(e)
read with sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The
trial court also convicted A.2 to A.5 under sec. 109 IPC and sec.
13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act. The trial court acquitted
A.6, Chartered Accountant. The trial court further directed
confiscation of pecuniary resources and properties to the extent of
Rs.77,49,337.77.
The appellant and A.2 to A.5 filed criminal appeals and the
High Court by its judgement dated 12-4-2001 acquitted A.2 to A.5
but confirmed the conviction of the appellant.
The Supreme Court, while disposing of the SLPs filed by the
appellant, held that the prosecution has established beyond a
reasonable doubt, that prior to the check period Accused Nos. 1,2
and 3 had no real source of income, except some meagre incomes,
i.e. the appellant only earned a small salary as a Lecturer and A.2
had small agricultural and other income. A.3, being a student had no
real source of income. Prior to the check period the financial condition
of the family was such that the appellant could not even repay his
small debts. The creditors had to recover their amounts by filing
suits and executing decrees. The High Court presumed that A.4 had
independent income. However, prior to the check period A.4 had not
been afflicted by any love and affection and had not made any gifts
to any member of the family of the appellant. Prior to the check period
A.4 did not even extend help to pay off the small debts of the appellant
even after the decrees had been passed against him. Yet suddenly,
during the check period, i.e. when the appellant is a Minister, A.4
donates large sums of money to A.2 and A.3. The natural
presumption, considering the common course of natural events and
human conduct is that the appellant would have used his nephew
A.4 to transfer his monies to A.2 and A.3. This is the supposition
which any prudent man under these circumstances would act upon
considering the natural course of events. The trial court and the
High Court thus rightly took this as proved by legal evidence. The