Bail granted as charges failed to be not proved against appellant

Radheshyam Mehra Vs State of Chhattisgarh (Chhattisgarh High Court)

Chhattisgarh High Court held that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the appellant possessed properties disproportionate to his known source of income. Accordingly, appellant is acquitted of the charge under Sections 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and hence bail granted.

Facts-

The prosecution’s case is that the accused/appellant was working as Chief Executive Engineer of Janpad Panchayat and was posted at various places between 1.9.2003 to 10.3.2011. The prosecuting agency obtained a search warrant from the competent Court on 8.3.2011 and effected search at four different places at a time on 10.3.2011.

According to the prosecution, the check period starts from 1.9.2003 and ends on 10.3.2011. During this period, the appellant acquired properties of Rs.75,43,891/- which is unexplained earnings of the appellant. Resultantly, against the appellant, a charge sheet was filed and accordingly, charges were framed by the trial Court under Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act which was denied by him and he pleaded for trial.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.