1. The Applicants are challenging the order passed by the Special Court, Solapur, dated 19th September 2016 rejecting the discharge application filed by the Applicants.

2. It is the case of Applicant No.1 that both the discrete and open inquiry were conducted against the Applicant No.1 along with other Applicants in year 2005. In the said both enquiry conducted against the Applicant No. 1, the accounts of the Applicant No. 1 was tested out from the year 1973 to the year 2005 and nothing disproportionate assets were found and hence the said enquiries came to be closed on 22nd February 2008 by Director of General, ACB Worli, Mumbai and the same was conveyed to the present Applicants on 16th December 2008 by ACB, Thane.

3. The son-in-law of the present Applicant No. 1, Neeraj Jariwala, in the year 2011, filed a complaint before the ACB, Pune on 17th July 2011, alleging that the present Applicants bear disproportionate assets in Pune District and had asked to conduct an enquiry into the same. It is alleged that based upon the said complaint, Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Pune had called Neeraj Jaiswal for recording his statement and the crime is registered.

4. At the time of recording the statement of said complainant Neeraj Jariwala, the Applicants were asked to remain present before the same Authority for giving an explanation in the respect of complaint filed by him. The Applicants were not served personally for the same and thus it was not into their knowledge to remain present for said inquiry before said Authority.

5. In the said complaint, it was alleged that the present Applicants purchased a property of worth Rs.6,68,529/- from the year 1973 to 1995, which amounts to 25% more than their income. It is said that based upon the said complaint and allegation, an FIR came to be lodged by the said Dy.S.P.-Bhatt against the present Applicants and other co-accused persons on 12th February 2014 for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. It is alleged that the accused persons have acquired a disproportionate property of 25% more which revealed during the enquiry and 10% more was added which was amount received by the Applicant No. 4 by the gift amount from Janardhan Gaikwad of about Rs.75,000/- and the rent of tractor of about Rs.1,50,120/-which was denied by the Investigating Officer and hence, disproportionate assets have raised to 33%.

7. During the period of argument, the learned counsel for Applicants has tendered the chart, which shows that the loan which was taken in 1994 is shown in 1995-96 and, therefore, there was increase in the disproportionate assets for the check period from 1973 to 2005, which includes 1994 and 1995. The said chart is reproduced as under:

                   

8. After scrutinizing the available documents and the varsity of the evidence, the Director General of Anti-Corruption Bureau, Worli had closed the file against the Applicant No. 1.

9. The allegations in the FIR are similar. The discrete and open enquiry against all the Applicants was conducted by Thane, ACB and check period of that enquiry was from year 1973 to 2005 and after said enquiry, no disproportionate assets were found and hence that enquiry was closed on 28th February 2008. The Investigating Officer had not taken into consideration the amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, which was taken as a house loan by the Applicant no. 1 from Vaishya Bank, Solapur in year 1994-95. Therefore, if the said loan is deducted then DPA is only 4.20% in the year 1994-95. Similarly an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- received as rent of tractor in the year 1994 has to be deducted, because tractor was purchased in the year 2004.

10. One Mr. Janardhan Gaikwad has gifted Rs.75,000/- in year 1994 and he has filed the affidavit. It was accepted while conducting the enquiry and it was accepted and given a clean chit in the year 2008.

11. The Learned APP has also conceded that the said amount is considered in year 1995 and, therefore, there is no any disproportionate property against these Applicants.

12. The learned counsel for the Applicant has relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kanchan Kumar v. The State of Bihar(Cri.Appeal No.1562 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Cri.) No.9601 of 2016 Dtd. 14th September 2022.) to buttress his contentions that the period of 1994-95 is considered while conducting open and discrete enquiry and after the said enquiry, no disproportionate assets were found and hence, that enquiry was closed. The learned counsel for the Applicant has further relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Krishnanand Agnihotri v. State of Madhya Pradesh.(AIR 1977 SC 796.)

13. Considering the document which is tendered and the Authorities cited by the Applicants, the case is made out to discharge the Applicants from this offence.

14. Hence the Application is allowed. The impugned order and common order on Exhibit Nos.33 and 53 dated 19th September 2016 passed by Special Judge, Solapur are quashed and set aside.

15. The Applicants are hereby discharged from Special Case No.11 of 2015.

16. The Criminal Revision Application is accordingly disposed of.