1. This appeal has been filed by the State of Kerala represented by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (`VACB' for short), challenging the judgment in C.C.No.44/2008 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram dated 30.05.2015.

2. Heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State/appellant as well as the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/accused in this case.

3. The prosecution case is that the first accused being a public servant, in the capacity of Medical Superintendent, Taluk Head Quarters, Mananthavadi, Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Muvattupuzha, Deputy Director, TB at the DHS Office, Thiruvananthapuram, District Medical Officer, Thiruvananthapuram, Additional Director of Health services (Family welfare), Thiruvananthapuram and the Director of Health Services, Thiruvananthapuram during the period from 01.01.1994 to 31.10.2005 and second accused, wife of the first accused who was also a public servant, viz., Civil Surgeon Grade-1, Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Muvattupuzha and Superintendent, Women & Child Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, during the said period, in furtherance of their common intention of amassing enormous assets by any means and in pursuance thereof, they acquired huge assets during the said period. It is alleged that the first accused acquired assets worth Rs.60,29,656/- (Rupees Sixty Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Six only) in his name and in the name of his two daughters, who were having no independent source of income during the said period of which assets worth Rs.24,54,988/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty Eight only) was found disproportionate to his known source of income during the aforesaid period, for which the first accused could not satisfactorily account. The second accused Doctor was found to have acquired assets amounting to Rs.48,02,315/- (Rupees Forty- Eight Lakhs Two Thousand Three Hundred and Fifteen only) during the said period which was found to be disproportionate to her known source of income and the second accused is also seen to have incurred expenditure of Rs.7,30,229/- (Rupees Seven. Lakh Thirty Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty Nine only) in excess of her total income during the said period and thereby the first and second accused were found to be in possession of assets amounting to total sum of Rs.72,57,303/- (Rupees Seventy Two Lakhs Fifty Seven Thousand Three Hundred and Three only) as on 31.10.2005 for which the first and second accused could not satisfactorily account for. It is on this premise the first and second accused alleged to have committed offences punishable under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (`PC Act, 1988’ for short hereafter) and Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (`IPC’ for short hereafter).

4. In this matter, the learned Special Judge proceeded with trial against the respondent. During trial, PW1 to PW64 were examined and Exts.P1 to P211(f) were marked on the side of the prosecution. On the side of the defence, DW1 to DW6 were examined and Exts.D1 to D18 were marked.

5. The learned Special Judge, on appreciation of evidence and on hearing both sides, found that the accused did not commit the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988.

Accordingly, the respondent/accused was acquitted.

6. While assailing the judgment, the learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that the challenge in this appeal is confined to Ground G in the appeal memorandum and according to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, the Special Court erred in finding Rs.35 lakh as the income of the respondent by misunderstanding the facts and the evidence involved. In this connection, Grounds E, F and G in the appeal memorandum are relevant. The same are extracted as under:

                  `E. The finding of the Trial Court regarding the expense of Rs.35,00,000/- as income of the accused is patently erroneous and defense projected by the accused as lack legal foundation.

                  F. The Court below ought to have found that the accused and his wife jointly disbursed 13 cents with a double storied house for the construction of Rs.70,00,000/- on 30.03.2005 as per Ext.P12(a) sale deed. This 13 cents of property was purchased by the accused and his wife on 01.03.1994 vide Sale Deed No. 1255 and 1256 of 1994 of SRO, Edappally as per Ext.P12(b) and (c). The total sale value as per Ext.P12(b) and (c) sale deed is Rs.1,80,000/-. The prosecution further proved that the accused and his wife constructed the house building during the year 1995- 97 in this property. The total plinth area of this building is 4400 sq.ft. This is a double storied building. As per Ext.P12(a) sale deed, the total sale value of the house building is Rs.35 Lakhs. The purchase of land and the house construction was carried out within the check period and for the purchase of land for the construction purpose, the accused have to spend a total amount of Rs.36,80,000/-(35,00,000+ 1,80,000) purchase value of the land is Rs.1,80,000/-and the cost of construction as per Ext.P12(a) is Rs.35 Lakhs. When deducted this cost of construction and purchase value of property from the total sale consolation is come to Rs.33,20,000/-(Rs.70,00,000-Rs.36,80,000 = 33,20,000). This amount is treated as an item of income of the accused being cheque period.

                  G. The Court below erred in ignoring the same and over and above this admitted amount account the entire amount of Rs.35 Lakhs as income which boosted at the income side and washed of the DA (Disproportionate Asset).“

7. According to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, 50% of Rs.33,20,000/-, i.e, Rs.16,60,000/-, would have been considered by the Special Court as the income of the respondent. If Rs.16,60,000/- is added towards the income of the accused, a finding could not be entered by the Special Court holding that there is no amassment of disproportionate income. It is pointed out that the finding of the Trial Court regarding the expense of Rs. 35,00,000/- as income of the accused is patently erroneous and defence projected by the accused would lack legal foundation.

8. The expert witnesses have unequivocally stated that the addition of Rs.35,00,000 to the income side is legally valid. This is supported by the testimonies of PW-26 (Chartered Accountant) and PW-64 (Income Tax Officer) before the trial court. They stated that the amount of Rs.35,00,000 to be treated as capital gains, under the head `income’. Thus the learned Special Public Prosecutor sought for interference in the verdict impugned.

9. Resisting the contention raised by the learned Public Prosecutor, the learned counsel for the respondent/accused filed an argument note mainly raising the following contentions:

                  B. The Court below ought to have found that the accused and his wife jointly disbursed 13 cents with a double storied house for the construction of Rs.70,00,000/- on 30.03.2005 as per Ext.P12(a) sale deed. These 13 cents of property were purchased by the accused and his wife on 01.03.1994 vide Sale Deed No.1255 and 1256 of 1994 of SRO, Edappally as per Ext.P12(b) and (c). The total sale value as per Ext.P12(b) and (c) sale deed is Rs.1,80,000/-- The prosecution further proved that the accused and his wife constructed the house building during the year 1995- 97 in this property. The total plinth area of this building is 4400 sq.ft. This is a double storied building. As per Ext. P12(a) sale deed, the total sale value of the house building is Rs.35 Lakhs. The purchase of land and the house construction was carried out within the check period and for the purchase of land for the construction purpose, the accused have to spend a total amount of Rs.36,80,000/- (35,00,000+ 1, 80,000) purchase value of the land isRs.1,80,000/- and the cost of construction as per Ext.P12(a) is Rs.35 Lakhs. When deducted this cost of construction and purchase value of property from the total sale consolation is come to Rs.33,20,000/- (Rs.70,00,000 Rs.36,80,000 - 33,20,000). This amount is treated as an iter of income of the accused being cheque period.

                  It is completely incorrect to assume that the cost of construction is 35,00,000/-. No scientific or reliable evidence has been produced to prove this amount. The prosecution did not obtain any valuation of the building from a competent authority such as the PWD. In fact, this very argument was raised by the prosecution in the trial court and was rejected because they had not properly calculated the construction cost.

                  (As stated on page 76 of the trial court judgment construction of the building situated in the property covered by exhibit P12 b & c had not worked out by the prosecution.)

                  In the same case, the investigation team had obtained and accepted the PWD valuation to determine the cost of construction for the residential building at Shanti Nagar, Thiruvananthapuram, owned by the former A2, Dr. K.K. Sumathy. Therefore, using a completely different method in the present instance amounts to a clear double standard. It is evident that calculating the cost of construction based solely on the sale deed value is incorrect and unreliable.

                  The amount of ₹35,00,000/- mentioned in the sale deed represents the appreciated market value of the building and not the actual cost of construction.

                  C. The Court below erred in ignoring the same and over and above this admitted amount account the entire amount of Rs 35 Lakhs as income,  which  boosted  at  the  income  side  and  washed  of  the  DA (Disproportionate Asset).

                  The expert witnesses have unequivocally stated that the addition of Rs: 35,00,000 to the income side is legally valid. This is supported by the testimonies of PW-26 (Chartered Accountant) and PW-64 (Income Tax Officer) before the trial court.

                  D. The Court below ought to have found that the admitted cost of construction of the house building and the amount expended for the purchase of land in the expenditure side.

                  The prosecution has misinterpreted the cost of construction. The amount of Rs. 35,00,000/- mentioned is taken from sale deed P12, which represents the appreciated value of the building, not the actual cost of construction. Hence, it will not come in the expenditure side.

                  E. The finding of the Special Judge that Rs. 35 Lakhs found in possession of the accused as FD has to be considered as his income is absolutely wrong conclusion and accused was unsuccessful to account for the disproportionate asset found in his possession. The Court below ought to have found that DW6 Dr. Sumathi is the wife of the accused Rajan, she has to be considered as a family member of the accused, hence the assets and income of DW6 is to be treated as asset on behalf of the accused.

                  PW11, Senior Manager, Central Bank of India, Rishi Mangalam Branch, stated in Sheet No. 2, Serial No. 7, that the Fixed Deposit dated 05/08/2005, SD No. 310214, stands in the name of Dr. V.K. Rajan. This entry was marked as Exhibit D1 during the cross-examination of PW11. From Exhibit D1 (Ext. P26), it is clear that on 05/08/2005, a Fixed Deposit of Rs. 35 lakhs were made in the name of Dr. Rajan.

                  This clearly explains the cash flow.

                  DW6, formerly A2, is a gynecologist with an independent income for which she has duly paid income tax. Therefore, her assets and income cannot be clubbed with those of A1 merely because she is a family member. The Honorable High Court, in order Cri. M.C. 3327/2012, allowed the trial to proceed only against A1. This is also in clear contradiction to the verdicts of both the Honorable High Court and the Honorable Supreme Court.

                  Admittedly, Dr. Sumathy is also a public servant with independent income. In such a situation, it cannot be said that she possessed any property on behalf of the first accused, Dr. Rajan. It is also very pertinent to note that the very foundation of the prosecution case is that the assets and income mentioned in Exhibit P208 series (Basic Statements) are solely those of Dr. V.K. Rajan. As per the prosecution, the assets and income shown in Exhibit P209 series Basic Statements are the independent assets and income of Dr. Sumathy.

                  Moreover, during cross-examination at original page 101, PW-61, the Investigating Officer, categorically admitted that the properties standing in the names of the wife and children of the first accused are not benami properties.

                  Based on the above citations, the income and assets of Dr. Sumathy cannot be treated as the assets of A1.

                  F. The Court below ought to have found that DW6 Dr. Sumathi is the wife of the accused Rajan, she has to be considered as a family member of the accused, hence the assets and income of DW6 is to be treated as asset on behalf of the accused. This finding is unsustainable, as DW6 is an independent earning member, a qualified gynecologist, and a regular income tax payer. Furthermore, all charges against the former A2 have already been quashed by both the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Crl.M.C.No.3327/2012 and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP 7913/2015.

                  G. The Court had erred in finding that as per Section 45 of the Income Tax Act, the consideration obtained by the accused at the time of sale of Ext P12(c) property as per Ext. P12(a) sale deed as is to be treated as capital gain and the same is liable to be considered as loss.

                  PW-26 (Chartered Accountant) and PW-64 (Income Tax Officer) clearly stated that the sale deed amount of Rs.70,00,000/- from which A1's half share of Rs. 35,00,000/- must be treated as income constitutes capital gains. As per Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, capital gain is considered income. (Kindly refer to the judgment in CC 44/2008, specifically pages 75, 76, and 77.)

                  "Further explanation: While going through the judgment, the legal advisor argued that the improvement of the building costing Rs. 11,25,000/- (Rs. 22,50,000 divided by two) should be treated as the asset of the accused. However, this amount of Rs. 22,50,000/- is only a calculated figure used for computing income under long-term capital gains.

                  Such computation is done based on the Cost Inflation Index published by the Government of India every year. This means the amounts shown in Sheet 133 of Exhibit P46, regarding the acquisition of land and the indexed cost of improvement of the building, are notional figures and not the actual amount spent on improvements. This was clearly explained in detail by PW- 64, the Income Tax Officer.

                  In the present case, even if half of the indexed cost of the building, i.e., Rs. 11,25,000/-, is treated as the asset of the accused, it still does not support the prosecution's case.

                  I have already mentioned that Rs. 90,000/- was spent by the first accused for the purchase of the property covered by Exhibit P12(c). If this Rs. 90,000/- is added to Rs. 11,25,000/-, the total amount comes to Rs. 12,15,000/-.

                  If Rs. 12,15,000/- is deducted from the total income of Rs. 85,33,876/-, the remaining amount is Rs. 73,18,876/-.

                  If Rs. 35,00,000/- is further deducted from the total amount shown in Exhibit P208(a), the total asset value is only Rs. 26,75,806/-.

                  The total expenditure during the check period is only Rs.14,59,208/-.Therefore, the total   assets   and   expenditure   during  the check  period amount to only Rs.41,35,014/-.

                  Summary of Income, Assets & Expenditure (Check Period)

                 

                

                  Conclusion

                  There is no disproportionate accumulation of assets by A1. Instead, A1 has a surplus income of Rs.43,98,862/-, which fully explains his assets and expenditure during the check period. Hence, he was acquitted by the trial court.

                  H. The Court below ought to have found that the sale of 6.5 cents of property covered by Ext.P12(c) sale deed and a receipt of Rs.35 Lakhs as consolation was not properly intimated by the first accused to concerned authority.

                  It was already intimated by Special Property statement to the Investigating Officer. So also, to the Head of the department Additional Chief Secretary of Health of the State of Kerala. This also mentioned in the Trial Court Judgement Page No: 78.

                  The property statement relating to Dr. V. K. Rajan (A1) was forwarded as Sheet No. 2 of Exhibit P91, which is the letter sent by the Director of Health Services to the Government for the period 1993-2005.

                  Addl. Points

                  1. check period is 1.1.94 to 12.5.05 later Pw61 by P7 extended it to 31.5.05. This is illegal /Director of enforcement. Vs. TM Corpn 1996 2 SCC 471- there is a distinction between offence and blameworthy conduct/amassment of wealth disproportionate to the income beyond the check period is only a blameworthy conduct and not an offence.

                  2. Besides the word in sec. 13(1) (e) is at any point of time means during the check period.

                  3. The I.O. has no authority to extend the check period without orders from the superior authority or PE.

                  4. 1987 Supp 379 State of Maharashtra.Vs. Pollonji Darabshaw Daruwalla/ period has to be determined by the allegations of facts on which the prosecution rests.

                  5. The officer was on leave during 30.3.04 to 20.4.06 and retired on 30.4.06 so he was out of service and this period has to be excluded.

                  6. Sajjan singh.Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1964 SC 464 & Hemant Kumar mohanti.Vs. state of Orissa 1973 1 SLR 1121, C.D.Swamy.Vs. The   state AIR 1960 SC 7.‘

10. According to the learned counsel for the accused, if at all the surplus income in addition to the tune of Rs.43,98,862/- is considered as the income, the trial court ought to have found that the sale of 6.5 cents of property covered by Ext.P12(a) sale deed and receipt of Rs.35 lakh as consideration was not properly intimated by the accused to the concerned authority and according to him, if at all the argument of the learned Special Public Prosecutor to take Rs.16,60,000/- as the income of the appellant, then also the same is properly explained and in such circumstances, the offence under Section 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 would not attract.

11. Having gone through the rival arguments, the points arise for consideration are:

                  (i) Whether the Special Court is justified in holding that accused committed the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988?

                  (ii) Is it necessary to interfere with the judgment in any manner?

                  (iii) The order to be passed?

Points (i) to (iii)

12. Section 13 of the PC Act, 1988 deals with `criminal misconduct by a public servant'. Section 13(1)(e) provides that, if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income.

                  Explanation to Section 13(1)(e) provides that, for the purposes of this section, “known sources of income” means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant.

13. Since the argument is confined to only one point as already referred, this Court needs to consider only the said point.

14. In the decision reported in [AIR 1993 SC 313], M.Krishna Reddy v. State, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad, the Apex Court considered the necessary ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, 1988 and it was held that to substantiate a charge under section 13(1)(e), the prosecution must prove the following ingredients, namely (1) that the accused is a public servant, (2) the nature and extent of the pecuniary resources or property which were found in his possession, (3) it must be proved as to what were his known sources of income that is known to the prosecution, (4) it must prove quite objectively that such resources or property found in possession of the accused were disproportionate to his known source of income. Once the above ingredients are satisfactorily established, the offence of criminal misconduct under section 13(1)(e) is complete, unless the accused is able to account for such resources or property. In other words, only after the prosecution has proved the required ingredients, the burden of proof shifts to the accused to prove his innocence.

15. Looking the evidence available to substantiate the necessary ingredients for the offence alleged to be committed by the respondent, PW1 Superintendent of Police, VACB, Special Cell, Thiruvananthapuram registered this case and prepared Ext.P1 FIR on the basis of Order No. E17 (VE-3/2005/SCT) 12620/2005 dated 20.05.2006 issued by the Director, VACB, Thiruvananthapuram. PW1 as Superintendent of Police as per Ext.P2 order dated 25.05.2006, authorized PW61 Deputy Superintendent of Police, to conduct investigation in this case. In Ext.P1 FIR first accused alone was arrayed as accused. After conducting investigation in this case on the basis of Ext. P205 report dated 16.06.2008, Dr. K.K. Sumathy who is the wife of that first accused was arraigned as second accused in the case. PW61 Deputy Superintendent of Police who was in charge of Superintendent of Police, VACB, Thiruvananthapuram, verified the records and laid the charge sheet before the Special Court on 20.06.2008.  Subsequently as per the order dated 20.06.2013 in Crl.M.C.No.3327/2012, the charge against the second accused (K.K.Sumathy) was found unsustainable and the same was quashed.

16. Coming to the crux of the case, the respondent and his wife jointly disposed 13 cents with a double storied house for Rs.70,00,000/- on 30.03.2005 as per Ext.P12(a) sale deed. This 13 cents of property was purchased by the accused and his wife on 01.03.1994 vide Sale Deed No. 1255 and 1256 of 1994 of SRO, Edappally as per Ext.P12(b) and (c). The total sale value as per Ext.P12(b) and (c) sale deed is Rs.1,80,000/-. The prosecution further proved that the accused and his wife constructed the house building during the year 1995-97 in this property. The total plinth area of this building is 4400 sq.ft. This is a double storied building. As per Ext.P12(a) sale deed, the total sale value of the house building is Rs.70 lakh. The purchase of land and the house construction was carried out within the check period and for the purchase of land and for the construction purpose, the accused had to spend a total amount of Rs.36,80,000/- (35,00,000+1,80,000) [purchase value of the land is Rs.1,80,000/- and the cost of construction as per Ext.P12(a) is Rs.35 Lakh]. When deducted this cost of construction and purchase value of property from the total sale consideration, the amount would come to Rs.33,20,000/-(Rs.70,00,000-Rs.36,80,000 = 33,20,000). This amount is to be treated as an item of income of the accused during check period.

17. Thus the dispute is confined as to whether Rs.16,60,000/-(half of the sale consideration) is to be treated as income of the accused and if so, the accused satisfactorily explained the source thereof. Multiple contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent/accused and one of the contentions raised is that no scientific or reliable evidence has been produced by the prosecution to prove the cost of construction as Rs.35 lakh. However, as pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, DW6, the wife of the accused admitted the cost of construction as Rs.35 lakh. Further the prosecution relied on PWD Manual to work out the valuation confined to the said Manual. Thus contra contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent cannot be found in his favour. In fact, a statement has been filed by the prosecution including Rs.16,60,000/- also as income as well as assets. Thus, the disproportionate income of the respondent/accused is calculated at 48.76%, and the statement is as follows:

                 

                 

                 

                 

                 

18. On comparing the statement filed by the prosecution with that of the statement filed by the accused, it is well discernible that in the statement fled by the respondent/accused, in the head `assets', Rs.35 lakh calculated as construction cost was totally excluded to contend that there was no disproportionate income. In this connection, the Vigilance Manual is relevant. As per guideline No.150(a), the following items are described therein as assets:

                  “150(a): Credit balances in Savings and Current accounts, Fixed Deposits, Cumulative Deposits and Recurring Deposits in Banks and Post Offices. Fixed Deposits and Debentures in companies, firms, finance companies etc. should also be computed.”

19. Similarly as per guidelines 151(c) income from immovable property also is treated as income and it has been provided in guidelines 151(c) as under:

                  “151(c): Income from immovable property

                  (1) This can be derived in three different ways viz.

(1) sale proceeds of property (2) compensation arising in cases of acquisition of property by Government etc. and (3) income by way of rent or yield from agricultural property etc.

                  (2) Such income can be determined from relevant records like personal Books of Accounts of the public servant, Agreement deeds/Sale deeds, documents pertaining to compensation for acquisition of property and in the cases of rental income by rent receipts and lease agreements and by examination of tenants concerned. Further verification can also be made by reference to Income Tax returns and by the examination of bank accounts of the public servant and Municipal records.”

20. Since the value of the building is an admitted fact, there is no necessity to prove the same further. Moreover the value was assessed so in terms of PWD Manual. Here the property was purchased for Rs.1,80,000/- and the total amount received on its sale was Rs.70,00,000/-, where DW6 admitted that Rs.35 lakh was the building construction cost and as per the statements of assets the said amount (Rs.35,00,000/-, i.e 50% of Rs.70,00,000/-) was deposited as fixed deposit and in turn the same would come under the head `assets’. After purchase of the property, construction of the house was made for Rs.14,50,000/-, then as per Ext.P46 Income tax file, admittedly, the house was renovated by spending Rs.22,50,000/-. Thus the total cost of construction and renovation is calculated as Rs.36,80,000/-. When the amount of Rs.36,80,000/- is deducted from 70,00,000/-, the said price Rs.33,20,000/- would come under the head `actual value’ and the same is income during the check period. 50% of the same is income, ie. Rs.16,60,000/-, and it is thereby the prosecution calculated Rs.16,60,000/- under the head `income’ and Rs.35,00,000/- as `assets’.

21. At this juncture, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent is having relevance. According to the learned counsel for the accused, if at all this contention is true, the amount is satisfactorily accounted for. Here arises the main point as to whether Rs.36,80,000/- spent on the construction of the house is an amount for which the accused had properly accounted and provided a satisfactory explanation. According to the defence counsel, Rs.35,00,000/- obtained by way of sale of an immovable property need not be treated as income of the accused but to be treated as capital gain.  However, the accused did not provide any explanation as to how the money was obtained, and if so the said money is nothing but one within the purview of disproportionate income. Holding so, the finding of the Special Court that the accused did not commit any offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, 1988 is found to be unsustainable and the verdict would require interference holding that the prosecution succeeded in proving that the respondent/1st accused committed offence punishable under Section 13(1) (e) of the PC Act, 1988.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The verdict impugned is set aside. The accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, 1988 and he is convicted for the said offence r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988.

                  Sd/-

                  A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE

22. The respondent/accused is present in open court. Judgment pronounced in his presence finding that he is guilty for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988.

23. The accused is heard regarding the sentence to be imposed upon him. He has submitted that he did not commit the offence. Further, he had completed 75 years and has been suffering from various serious diseases. He had heart-attacks during 2018 and 2020. He had 95% block to his heart and thereby, he had undergone surgery. He has been continuing 12 items of medicines and four injections to maintain his health, and he is facing difficulty to control his urine.

24. The learned counsel for the respondent/accused argued for maximum leniency in the sentence taking note of the physical condition stated by the respondent/accused. I am convinced. Thereby, I am inclined to impose only minimum sentence to the respondent/accused.

25. Accordingly, the respondent/accused is sentenced to undergo  simple  imprisonment  for  one  year  and  to  pay  a  fine  of Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen lakhs only) in consideration of the mandate of Section 16 of the PC Act, 1988. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo default imprisonment for a period of four months.

The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the trial court concerned for information.