N.P. JHARIA versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [2007] 8 S.C.R. 618 · Decided: 30-07-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
N.P.JHARIA 
v. 
STATEOFM.P. 
JULY_ 30, 2007 
[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. 
F 
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. 
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 
H 
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· 
618 
j-
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 c 
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/-. 
!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, E 
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 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 
G1 
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 pursuet, before the High Court. I Para 15) (623-C, D, E, Fl 
' 
.. .;:.. 
2.4. So far as the valuation of the ass

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.