R. JANAKIRAMAN versus STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBI, SPE, MADRAS

Citation: [2006] 1 S.C.R. 212 · Decided: 04-01-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
R. JANAKIRAMAN 
V. 
STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBI, SPE, 
IV •ORAS 
JANUARY 4, 2006 
'..[S.B.SINHA AND R.V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.] 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947: 
Section 5( l)(e) rlw Section 5(2)-Assets beyond known sources of 
income-Failure to explain--Ejfect of-A search of the Government employee's 
house was conducted pursuant to information that the employee was corrupt 
and had amassed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income--A 
sum of Rs.2, 94,615 in cash was found in different containers, which was 
D sei:ed--The value of the assets held by the employee at the beginning of the 
check period was Rs. 13, 449---The value of the total assets of the employee at 
the end of the check period was Rs. 6,69,852--The total income earned by the 
employee during the check period was Rs. 2,81,497--The value of the assets 
of the employee beyond his known sources of income was found to be Rs. 
E 4.63,551-The employee offered an explanation that he had taken a loan of 
Rs. 1,25,000 each from PWs 11 and 15-The employee produced vario•1s 
documents like promissory notes, guarantee letters, confidential letter, equitable 
mortgage deed etc. in support of his explanation--However, P Ws 11 and 15 
stated that these documents were created to make the lending transaction to 
appear genuine even though no money was actually advanced-Trial Court 
F convicted the employee-High Court affirmed the conviction holding that the 
employee had not borrowed the said amount and that the same was part of 
the ill-gotten money acquired as illegal gratification-Correctness of-Held: 
The recovery of Rs. 2,94, 115 in cash not disputed-The employee admitted 
that it belonged to him-The persons from whom he allegedly borrowed the 
G said money had denied having lent the said amount-Moreover, the said 
employee failed to satisfactorily account for the assets beyond his known 
sources of income to the said extent of Rs. 2,50,000-Hence conviction under 
S. 5(1)(e) upheld. 
Evidence Act, 1872: 
H 
212 
,, 
.. 
··~ 
• 
R JANAKIRAMAN "· STATE REP.BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE. CBI. SPE. MADRAS 
2 J J 
"'.) 
Section 92-Scope and ambit of-Criminal proceedings-Application A 
/. 
of-Bar under-Held: Rule under S. 92 will apply only to the parties to the 
instrument or their successors-in-interest-Strangers to the contract (which 
would include the prosecution in a criminal proceeding) are not barred from 
establishing a contemporaneous oral agreement contradicting or varying the 
terms of the instrument-Therefore, bar under S. 92 will apply to a proceeding B 
inter-parties to a document and no. to a criminal proceeding. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
Section 386(b)(ii)-Appeal against conviction-Altering the finding and 
maintaining the sentence-Powers of the Appellate Court-Trial Court C 
convicted the accused under S. 5(/)(e) r!w S. 5(2) of the Prevention of 
Corruption Act, 1947 for possession of assets beyond his known sources of 
income-The High Court while affirming the conviction recalculated the exact 
amount of disproportionate wealth-Correctness of-Held: Appellate court 
may alter the finding of guilt of the accused from one Section to another, 
while maintaining the sentence-Therefore, the extent of the offence may be D 
changed in an appeal against conviction-Hence High Court did not exceed 
its jurisdiction under S. 386 (b)(ii). 
The appellant was employed as an Assistant Engineer in the Southern 
Railway. A search of the appellant's house was conducted pursuant to 
information that the appellant was corrupt and had amassed assets E 
disproportionate to his known sources of income. A sum of Rs.2,94,615 in 
cash was found in different containers, which was seized. The value of the 
assets held by the appellant at the beginning of the check period was Rs. 
13,449 and the value of the total assets of the appellant at the end of the 
check period was Rs. 6,69,852. The total income earned by the appellant F 
during the check period was Rs. 2,81,497. The value of the assets of the 
appellant beyond his known sources of income was found to be Rs. 
4,63,551. 
The appellant offered an explanation that he had taken a loan of Rs. 
1,25,000 each from PWs 11 and 15. The appellant produced various G 
documents like promissory notes, guarantee letters, confidential letter, 
equitable mortgage deed etc. in support of his explanation. However, PWs 
11 and 15, in their statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal 
Proced

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