PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988: Unique features, purpose of incorporation and its scope - Discussed. s.13(1)(e) - Criminal misconduct - Al to A4 entered into a conspiracy and in furtherance of the same, Al who was a public servant at the relevant time came into possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of her income during the check period and got the same dispersed in the names of A2 to A4 and the firms and the companies involved to hold these on her behalf with a masked front - Conviction by trial court - Acquittal by High Court - On appeal, held: The reasoning given by the trial court in respect of criminal conspiracy and abetment is correct in the face of the evidence indicating the circumstances of active abetment and conspiracy by A2 to A4 in the commission of the above offences u/s.13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act - This is evident from the circumstances that Al had executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of A2 in respect of Jaya Publications - The circumstance of executing the power of attorney in favour of A2 indicated that with a view to keep herself secured from legal complications, Al executed the said power of attorney knowing fully well that under the said powers, A2 would be dealing with her fonds credited to her account in Jaya Publications - Constitution of various firms during the check period was another circumstance establishing the conspiracy between the parties - 10 firms were constituted on a single day - In addition, A2 and A3 started independent concerns and apart from buying properties, no other business activity was undertaken by them - The circumstances proved in evidence undoubtedly established that these firms were nothing but extensions of Namadhu MGR and Jaya Publications and they owed their existence to the benevolence of Al and A2 - These firms and companies were operating om the residence of Al and it cannot be accepted that she was unaware ol the same even though she feigned ignorance about the activities carried on by A2 to A4 - They were residing with Al without any blood relation between them - Although A2 to A4 claimed to have independent sources of income but the fact of constitution of.firms and acquisition of large tracts of land out of the .funds provided by B Al indicated that, all the accused congregated in the house ol Al neither for social living nor Al allowed them free accommodation out of humanitarian concern, rather the facts and circumstances proved in evidence undoubtedly pointed out that A2 to A4 were accommodated in the house of Al pursuant to the criminal c conspiracy hatched by them to hold the assets of Al - There was frequent and spontaneous if!flow of funds from the accounts of A-1 to those of the other co-accused and the .firms/companies involved which demonstrated the collective culpable involvement al respondents in the transactions - The judgment of trial court restored in toto against A2 to A4 - Since A-1 died during pendency ol D appeals, appeals related to her abated. E s. l 3(J)(e) - Interpretation of the expression "satisfactorily account" in the context of the offence of misconduct uls.5(J)(e) of Act of 1947 and s.13(J)(e) of Act 1988 - Word "satisfactorily" used by the legislature deliberately cast a burden on the accused not only to offer a plausible explanation as to how he came to acquire his large wealth but also to satisfy the Court that his explanation was worthy of acceptance. s.l 3(J)(e) - Probative worth of Income Tax Proceedings qua lawfulness of the source of income :... IT returns and orders would F not ipso facto either conclusively prove or disprove the charge and can at best be pieces of evidence which have to be evaluated along with the other materials on record - Neither the income tax returns nor the orders passed in the proceedings relatable thereto, either definitively attest the lawfulness of the sources of income of the accused persons or are of any avail to them to satisfactorily account the disproportionately of their pecuniary resources and properties as mandated by s.13(J)(e) ol the PC Act. s. J 3(J)(e) - Gifts received by public servant - Receipt of huge amount of Rs.2 crores and foreign remittance as presents and H gifts as the Chief Minister of State -  as claimed to have been made to Al were not only prohibited by law, having regard to her A office and the role attached thereto, but also constituted an offence thereunder - Disclosure of such gifts in the income tax returns of A 1 and the orders of the income tax authorities on the basis thereof, do not validate the said receipts to elevate the same to lawfit.l income to repel the charge uls. l 3(l)(e) thereof- Gifts to Al, a public servant B in the context of ss.161 to l 65A lPC now integrated into the Act are visibly illegal and forbidden by law - The endeavour to strike a distinction between "legal" and "unlawful" as sought to be made to portray gifts to constitute a lawful source of income is thus wholly misconstrued - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.161 to 165A. s. l 3(l)(e) - Disproportionate assets -According to respondent  No. 1, as against the figure of Rs.24.29 crores being the value of new/additional construction of buildings during the check period, as computed by the prosecution, her assertion was of Rs.6.52 crores - Prima facie, the plea of the prosecution that in assessing the expenditure of new/additional buildings, the High Court had not D only taken a reduced constructed area of 1668.39 sq. Ji. instead of 2174.69·sq ft., thereby introducing a shortfall of 506.3 sqs., it also applied the rate of Rs.28,0001- per sq. ft. based on the construction cost of a sentry shed, as the base value to work out the amount of investments made towards the new/additional buildings/constructions is borne out by the records - The approach of the High Court on E both counts in the face of the evidence on record is not acceptable - The adoption of Rs.28, 0001- per sq. ft. as the base value, which was the cost of construction of a sentry shed, per se was erroneous, having regard to the fact that a sentry shed and the new/additional constructions/buildings are not comparable. F s.l 3(1)(e) - Addition of Rs.4 crores by High Court towards income of Jaya Publications and Namadhu MGR to the .figure cited by the DVAC on account of Scheme deposit - Propriety of- Held: High Court was not justified in allowing an additional sum of Rs.4 crores as income of Jaya Publications merely on the basis of the G oral evidence of the 31 witnesses - Moreso, since the accused had failed to produce the primary documents in original before the auditors and the income tax authorities in support of scheme deposit - Trial court had duly considered these factors more particularly the inordinate delay in submission o,f income tax returns much after the submission of the charge-sheet, along with the other attendant circumstances - Testimony of subscribers to the scheme was also rightly rejected by trial court as they were hardened party workers. s.13(l)(e) -Addition of Rs.1 crore by High Court towards income of Super Duper Pvt. Ltd. - This amount is claimed to be B legitimate income of A-3 from his business initially carried on as proprietor of Super Duper TV and later incorporated as Super Duper Pvt. Ltd. - Trial Court in contradistinction took pains to examine the trail of the income claimed by the company and the feasible investments thereof- It also took note of the huge it?flow and outflow c of cash to and from the accounts of the firms/companies of which the respondents were partners/directors during the check period so much so that the income claimed by A3 under tps head ceased to retain its independent identity so as to be accepted 'ds the discernible earnings of the company for transacting its business activities as a distinctly separate institution - The summary treatment of the  evidence on this issue by the High Court lacks the desired approach and, therefore, cannot be sustained - The addition awarded by it of income of Rs.1 crore to Super Duper T. V. · Pvt. Ltd. thus cannot be upheld. E F s.13(1)(e)-Loan byA-1 toA-2-Addition of Rs.1.53 crores sought as loan from A-2 and her proprietary firms - Having regard to the persons and entities involved in the transactions, in the absence of other convincing evidence, the said receipts/deposits cannot be accepted to be lawful income as envisioned in s.13(l)(e) of the Act. s. l 3(1)(e) - Addition of Rs. 46. 71 lacs as agricultural income - High Court enhanced the agricultural income of A-1 to Rs.52.50 lacs - Held: In absence of any independent evidence in support of this claim, having regard to the state of law that income tax returns/orders are not automatically binding on the criminal  court, the effortless acceptance thereof by the High Court was in disregard to this settled proposition - High Court erred in accepting . income tax return and orders passed thereon and in adding Rs.46. 71 lakhs under the head of agricultural income. s.13(l)(e) -Addition of loan amount of Rs.18.17 crore by High Court - Held: The High Court wrongly totalled the amount to inflate figures to Rs.24.17 crores which in fact ought to have been Rs. 10.67 crore on correct calculations - Addition of Rs.18.17 crores as done by High Court was erroneous and not sustainable. s.J1(l)(e)-A-l s income from three companies - The deposits and withdrawals represented through the different entries in the bank accounts suggested multiplication of transactions stemming from the same corpus - The maze of financial exchanges in fragments involving different combinations hint at the attempt to inflate individual and collective income of the respondents - The banking transactions, though resorted to for proclaiming genuineness thereof. having regard to the overall factual conspectus did not appear to be real. s.J3(J)(e) - Expenditure incurred by A-1 in connection with marriage of A-3 - High Court reduced from Rs.6.45 crores and accepted the figure of Rs.28.68 lakhs towards expenditure towards marriage to be share of expense of A-1 - PW-181 Assistant Engineer PWD in his report mentioned inter alia, the areas of the various pandals together with the decorative attachments and after accounting for the cost thereof and the price of the furniture used and the amenities provided, estimated the expenditure to be Rs.5.91 crores towards the pandals and other arrangements to secure the intended facilities for the couple, guests and other participants - His findings in his report could be construed to be of an expert witness and further could be used as corroboration for the testimony of PW200 who indeed had supervised the same works himse(l and as claimed by the prosecution on the instructions/advise of A2 - PW200, Chief Engineer, P~D did assert on oath that he was instructed by A2 to complete the panda/ works as early as possible - He deposed as well that Al and A2 had inspected the work by visiting the site about a week prior to the marriage - In the face of the evidence in particular of the elaborate arrangements at the venues and the expenses incurred on other items associated with the event, the Trial Court did not err in not accepting the.figure of Rs.28.68 lacs as the expenditure incurred by Al on the basis of her reply to the queries made by the Income Tax Department. Corruption - It not only has a demoraliSing bearing on those who are ethical, honest, upright and enterprising, it is visibly 529 antithetical to the quintessential spirit of the fundamental duty of every citizen to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity to raise the nation to higher levels of endeavour and achievement- Every citizen has to be a partner in this sacrosanct · mission for a stable, just and ideal social order as envisioned by our forefathers and fondly cherished by the numerous se(f-effacing B crusaders 9J a free and independent Bharat, pledging their countless sacrifices and selfless commitments for such cause. (Per Amitava Roy, J.) PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1947s.5(1)(e) - Interpretation of - Held: A bare perusal of clause (e) of s.5(1) of 1947 Act reveal that the criminal misconduct of the public servant, as envisaged therein, would ensue if he/she or any person on his/her behalf was in possession or had, at any point of time during the period of his/her office, been in possession of pecuniary resources or property, disproportionate to his/her known sources of income, which the public servant cannot sati!>factorily account - Significantly, for such misconduct, the possession of the disproportionate pecuniary resources or property, which the public servant is unable to satisfactorily account, can be held either by him/her or any person on his/her behalf is essential - This offence thus, enfolds in its sweep a definitive involvement and role of persons other than the public servant, either as a abetter or a co-conspirator in the actualisation of the crime - Consequently, thus such abettors or co-conspirators or partners in this item of offence, if proved, cannot escape the legal consequences for their participatory role. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: s.452 - Invocation of s.452 by special judge under PC Act to order confiscation/forfeiture of the properties otherwise attached under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 - Permissibility of - Held: Permissible - In terms of s.5(6), Special Judge is . G authorised to exercise all powers and/unctions exercisable by a District Judge under the Ordinance - In the instant case, the o.f)ences at the trial were u/ss.13(1)(e), 13(2) of the PC Act, ss.109 and 120B !PC encompassed within paragraphs 4A and 5 of the Schedule to the Ordinance - These offences were unimpeachably within the contours of the PC Act and triable by a special Judge thereunder therefore, the order of confiscation/forfeiture of the properties standing in the name of six companies, as involved, made by the trial court is sustainable - Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944. A CRIMINAL LAW: Conspiracy - Proof of - Held: A conspiracy can be proved B by circumstantial evidence as having regard to the nature of the offending act, no direct evidence can be expected. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.136 - Scope of interference with an order of acquittal/ C conviction under Art.136 of the Constitution - Held: Once the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the view taken by the lower court was clearly unreasonable, then that by itself would be a compelling reason for interference - It is a courts duty to convict a guilty person when the guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt, no less than it is its duty to acquit the accused when such  guilt is not so established. EVIDENCE ACT, 1872: s.45 - Expert opinion/evidence - Probative. worth of - Held: An expert is one who has made a subject upon which he speaks or renders his opinion, a matter of particular study, practice or observation and has a special knowledge thereof- His knowledge must be within the recognized field of expertise and he essentially has to be qualified in that discipline of study - It has been propounded that an expert is not a witness of fact and its evidence is really of an advisory character and it is his duty to furnish to the  Judge/Court the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of the conclusions so as to enable the Judge/Court to .form his/its independent judgment by the application of such criteria to the facts proved by the evidence - By virtue of s.45 of the Evidence Act 1872, which makes the opinion of an expert admissible, not only an G expert must possess necessary special skill and experience in his discipline, his opinion must be backed by reason and has to be examined and cross-examined to ascertain the probative worth thereof - The evidentiary value of the opinion of an expert depends on the facts upon which it is based and also the validity of the process by which the conclusion has been reached - The Court is not to subjugate its own judgment to that of the expert or delegate its authority to a third party but ought to assess the evidence of the expert like any other evidence. BENAMI TRANSACTIONS:  Courts are usually guided by the following circumstances: The source from which the purchase money came; The nature of possession of the property, after the purchase; Notice, if any for giving the transaction a benami colour; The position of the parties and the relationship, if any, between the claimant and the alleged benamdar; The custody of the title-deeds after the sale; and The conduct of the parties concerned in dealing with the property after the sale. PENAL CODE, 1860: s.109 - Private individual can also be prosecuted/or offence u/s.109.  INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES: Anti-corruption laws - Any interpretation of the provisions of anti-corruption laws has to be essentially positive, in .furtherance of its mission and not in retrogression thereof (Per Amitava Roy, J.)