Duly accounted property of kin not to be seized

Duly accounted property of kin not to be seized
UNITED NEWS OF INDIA

New Delhi, July 23: In a ruling that may have a bearing on the recent income tax raids on cricketers, the Supreme Court has directed in a case of disproportionate assets, that the property of the wife and other relatives, acquired through their own resources, and duly accounted for, have to be excluded from the assets of the accused.

The ruling was given by a two-judge bench comprising Justices Rajendra Babu and Justice Shivaraj Patil, while dismissing an appeal by the Madhya Pradesh Government in a corruption case.

The appeal was directed against a MP high court order quashing charges framed against a public servant by an Indore special court.

A complaint under Sec 13(1)(E) read with Sec 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was filed alleging that road transport inspector Mohanlal Soni, while working in the regional office of the road transport corporation had acquired assets in excess of his known sources of income during the period between September 25, 1982 and March 27, 1993.

During the investigation, properties and assets belonging to Soni's mother-in-law, father, brother and nephew were shown as his assets. The assets of his wife, an income tax assessee and a self-earning member, were also included in Soni's assets.

While submitting the chargesheet against the respondent, several important documents like the orders of assessment and IT returns collected during the course of the investigation, were withheld.

The documents supported the case of the respondent.

An application by the respondent, seeking that the documents be produced in the court before charges were framed, was rejected by the trial court, and despite a direction by the high court in a revision petition that documents should be produced and the trial court must consider them before framing the charges, the special judge proceeded to frame charges.

The order of the special judge framing charges was set aside by the high court when it was approached for a second time, necessitating the appeal before the apex court.

``Since the trial court did not follow the earlier direction of the high court, the high court, having considered all the materials including the documents provided by the prosecution itself which were collected during the investigation and on being prima facie satisfied checking the documents on their face value held that no offence was made out and as such, no charge could be framed against the respondent,'' the judges observed in their 12-page judgment.

Stating the law on framing charges, the judges noted ``the crystallised judicial view is that at the stage of framing charges, the court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused.''