Disproportionate Assets: Gujarat High Court Upholds Conviction Of Judicial Officer Whose Wife Received ₹7 Lakh 'Gift' From Non-Relative

The Gujarat High Court upheld a trial court order convicting a judicial officer in a disproportionate assets case, after noting the officer could not prove that his wife was legally entitled to receive a gift from a person who was not his wife's blood relation or family member. It was alleged that the appellant while serving as Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Pardi, Valsad between 10.06.2002 to 01.10.2002, in abetment with accused No.2–his brother-in-law and accused No.3–his wife, while serving as a public servant had abused this position and illegally demanded and accepted bribe from prosecution witnesses.It was also alleged that his wife illegally obtained Rs.7 Lakh as gift from a woman, got a false gift deed prepared and purchased a property in District Junagadh, Village -Mangrol at Secretariat Road. The price of the property was assessed at Rs. 9,49,750 and the land assessment by Town Controller of Collector Office, Junagadh was as Rs.3,500 per sq. Mtrs., worth Rs.26,23,200; thus the total price of the property was Rs.35,72,950. Complaints were made to the Vigilance Department of the High Court alleging that the appellant was habitually accepting bribes and was thus charged under Sections 7(Offence relating to public servant being bribed), 13(2) (Criminal misconduct by a public servant) read with section 13(1)(e) (if public servant or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income which he cannot satisfactorily account) Prevention of Corruption Act. Subsequently the trial court convicted the officer. Referring to various judgments, Justice Gita Gopi in her order observed:"Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act has a very relevantly used expression 'satisfactorily account', which cast the burden on the accused not only to offer a plausible explanation as to how he came by his large wealth, but also to satisfy the Court that his explanation was worthy of acceptance...The prosecution herein had proved, that the source which had been proved by examining the witnesses, was not worthy of acceptance. The appellant as accused could not prove that his wife was legally entitle to accept money as gift from P.W.18. No blood relation of the spouse of the appellant is proved with P.W.18. The legal entitlement of receiving the cash amount as gift should be in accordance to the accepted provisions of conduct rules. Acceptance of money as gift from person not being the member of the family, more specifically, those not approved by the law, would always be a windfall gain to be termed as illegal..."The court referred to testimony of Prosecution Witness 17 who was examined during the trial (husband of Prosecution Witness 18), who stated that he did not know the full name of the person to whom the husband and wife had gifted Rs.7 Lakh by way of cheque.The court said that evidence of P.W.17 creates doubt regarding the transaction in the form of gift. It noted that the witness did not know the donee nor does he know the full name of donee. He has clarified that wife of the appellant is not his relative, then under what circumstances, Rs.7 Lakh were given as gift to appellant' wife becomes suspicious, the court noted. With respect to testimony of PW 18 who was examined (wife of PW 17) the court noted, "Here, it transpires that the gift letter, executed in favour of Shobhnaben (accused no. 3) was not within the knowledge of this witness. She stated that she had put the signature under the instruction of her son. The fact of execution of the gift letter, for the money given by cheque of Rs.7 Lacs, out of love and affection to Shobhnaben wife of the appellant becomes a doubtful aspect. It appears that the donor without her knowledge and understanding was asked to put her signature on the gift letter. The bank transaction was by the witness husband". The high court further noted that the judicial officer had not brought on record that prior to his wife accepting the gift they had sought any permission or had got any approval from the administrative functionary of Gujarat High Court.The court also referred to Rule 19(2) of Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971 which obligates the government servant to put to the knowledge of his prescribed authority prior to acquiring or disposing of any immovable property by lease, mortgage, purchase, gift or otherwise either in his own name or in the name of any member of his family.In the present case the court noted, the judicial officer had not proved by way of any documentary evidence of communication to the authority, to show if any sanction to receive money in the form a gift from PW 18 in his wife's name was taken from the High Court. It also said that appellant had failed to show and prove the relation between his wife and PW18. The court rejected the appeal. Case title: PREMJIBHAI HIRABHAI ...

Disproportionate Assets: Gujarat High Court Upholds Conviction Of Judicial Officer Whose Wife Received ₹7 Lakh 'Gift' From Non-Relative

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Disproportionate Assets: Gujarat High Court Upholds Conviction Of Judicial Officer Whose Wife Received ₹7 Lakh 'Gift' From Non-Relative

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers