Case Note & Summary
The case involves two appeals by Suresh Vinayak Morajkar (a Sepoy in the Customs & Central Excise Department) and his wife Sushma Suresh Morajkar against their conviction by the Special Court for CBI in Goa. The appellants were convicted for possessing disproportionate assets to the tune of ₹1,15,96,792 during the check period from 01.05.2008 to 06.01.2011. Suresh was convicted under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,00,00,000. Sushma was convicted under Section 109 IPC read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the said Act for aiding her husband and sentenced to one year simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000. The High Court of Bombay at Goa heard both appeals together. The court examined the evidence, including the valuation of assets, income, and expenditure during the check period. The prosecution established that Suresh's known sources of income were insufficient to acquire the assets in his and his wife's names. The court held that the burden shifted to the accused to satisfactorily account for the disproportionate assets, which they failed to do. The court also found that Sushma actively participated in acquiring assets and had no independent income, thus abetting the offence. The court dismissed both appeals, upholding the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Disproportionate Assets - Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) - Burden of Proof - The prosecution must prove that the accused was in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. Once the prosecution establishes the check period and the assets, the burden shifts to the accused to satisfactorily account for the same. The court held that the prosecution had proved the disproportionate assets and the accused failed to provide a satisfactory explanation. (Paras 4-20) B) Indian Penal Code - Abetment - Section 109 - Abetment by Wife - The wife was convicted for aiding her husband in acquiring disproportionate assets. The court held that the wife's active involvement in acquiring and holding assets in her name, coupled with lack of independent income, constituted abetment under Section 109 IPC. (Paras 21-30) C) Evidence - Valuation of Assets - Check Period - The court considered the valuation of assets at the beginning and end of the check period (01.05.2008 to 06.01.2011). The court accepted the prosecution's valuation and rejected the accused's contention that certain assets were acquired prior to the check period. (Paras 10-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of Suresh Morajkar under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and of his wife Sushma Morajkar under Section 109 IPC read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the said Act is sustainable.
Final Decision
Both appeals are dismissed. The conviction and sentence of Suresh Morajkar under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and of Sushma Morajkar under Section 109 IPC read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the said Act are upheld.
Law Points
- Disproportionate assets
- abetment by spouse
- burden of proof on accused
- standard of proof in corruption cases
- valuation of assets
- period of check
