Bombay High Court
State Of Mah vs Santoshkumar Avtarkrushna Kaul And Anr on 16 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:6607
CriAppeal-776-2005
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 776 OF 2005
The State of Maharashtra
Through Anti Corruption Bureau,
Jalgaon. ... Appellant
Versus
1. Santoshkumar Avtarkrushna Kaul
Age 58 years, Occupation Service,
2. Sau. Sandhya W/o Santoshkumar Kaul
Occupation Household Work,
Both R/o Abhishek Bungalow,
Plot No. 41, Jai Nagar,
Jalgaon. ... Respondents
[Orig. Accused]
.....
Mr. S. G. Sangle, APP for the Appellant-State.
Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for the Respondents.
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
Reserved on : 11.02.2026
Pronounced on : 16.02.2026
JUDGMENT :
1. State hereby questions the judgment and order of acquittal
passed on 10.06.2005 in Special Case No. 59 of 1996 by which
present respondents, husband and wife, were tried for commission of
offence under Sections 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 [PC Act[ and Section 109 of IPC respectively.
CriAppeal-776-2005
-2-
2. On report of PW 61 Prakash Rade, crime was registered against
present respondent no.1 Santoshkumar Kaul, who at the relevant
point of time was officiating as Deputy Engineer at Medium Project,
Nandgaon, District Nashik. It is the case of prosecution that between
the check period from 01.11.1969 to 19.07.1994, accused had
possessed properties worth Rs.23,52,796.93/- from all known
sources. Expenditure incurred by accused was found to be to the tune
of Rs.15,16,796/-. The properties comprised of both, movable and
immovable. Inquiry revealed that, total savings of accused persons
was to the tune of Rs.8,35,978/-, but total disproportionate assets
standing in their name were to the tune of Rs.6,75,336/-, of which
there was no satisfactory explanation. It is the specific case of
prosecution that accused no.2-wife had abetted accused no.1 in
amassing the disproportionate assets and therefore they were charge-
sheeted for commission of offence under Section 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2)
of PC Act and Section 109 of IPC respectively. Both were made to face
trial and on its conclusion, came to be acquitted by above judgment
which is now taken exception to by the prosecution by way of instant
appeal.
3. Learned APP would point out that, admittedly accused no.1 was
Deputy Engineer at relevant time. Accused no.2 is his wife. that, on
CriAppeal-776-2005
-3-
secret information PW 61 conducted discreet inquiry and noted above
disproportionate assets standing in their names, regarding acquisition
of which they could not give satisfactory explanation. He pointed out
that, prosecution had taken pains to examine as many as 61 witnesses
comprising of officials from Pay Allowance Department, Bank officials
and as such the witnesses were categorized and classified into seven
sets. He pointed out that, prosecution had a full proof case in the
form of above voluminous evidence, but the same has been
incorrectly appreciated and moreover, acquittal is granted on petty
counts like no explanation being sought from accused and sanctioning
authority not being examined.
4. Learned APP further pointed out that, from the testimonies of
above witnesses as well as the voluminous documentary evidence, it
was clear that there was amassing of huge properties which were
apparently standing in the name of both accused persons. that, the
known source of income of accused no.1 did not tally with the value
of the properties amassed by him. That, when accused no.2 had no
independent source of income and there was enough evidence to hold
that she abetted accused no.1 in above amassing property, the trial
court ought to have accepted the case of prosecution and ought to
have recorded guilt. According to him, the judgment under challenge
CriAppeal-776-2005
-4-
is without sufficient reason and there being inappropriate
appreciation at the hands of the trial court, he urges to interfere by
allowing the appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents would support the
impugned judgment and would submit that there was, firstly, no
proper methodology adopted for arriving to the value of the
properties. That, it had come on record that there was irrigated
agricultural property in the name of wife. That, it was the sound
source of income. That, accused persons being husband and wife,
composite income for the assets ought to have been considered and
the same is not done. Moreover, he pointed out that, before deciding
to launch prosecution, no opportunity was accorded to the accused to
offer explanation and therefore the decision being unilateral, was
rightly questioned by the trial court. He also pointed out that here,
merely because accused had admitted sanction order amongst other
papers, responsibility of discharging its statutory compliance as spelt
out under Section 19 of the PC Act not being complied, learned trial
court committed no error whatsoever in acquitting the accused and
for all above reasons, he prays to dismiss the appeal for want of
merits.
CriAppeal-776-2005
-5-
6. Re-appreciated the evidence on record. Here, categorization of
the witnesses had already been done by the learned trial Judge and
the witnesses are classified in view of their status before the trial
court. The witnesses seem to be from the pay and allowance
department, bank, revenue official, goldsmith and most importantly,
Investigating Officer PW 61. Each of the above witnesses have, in
their examination-in-chief, narrated what role they played in the
inquiry and scrutiny of the record and about whatever was noticed by
them.
7. PW Nos. 7 to 11, 13 and 14 seems to be from the Department
of Pay and allowance, PW Nos. 5, 16 to 19 are the witnesses who
deposed about the properties purchased by the accused. The third
category of witnesses is on the point of sale, purchases and expenses
of accused i.e. PW Nos. 20, to 24, 26, 27, 29 to 32, 34 to 42, 44 to 46
and 48 to 53, whereas the fourth group of witnesses comprises of
bank officials wherein accused persons allegedly maintained their
bank accounts and the last group comprising of panchas to the house
search, search of locker and seizure of vouchers etc.
8. Here, it is pertinent to note that complainant himself is the
Investigating Officer [IO] and therefore it would be apposite to deal
CriAppeal-776-2005
-6-
with his evidence in detail.
9. Before adverting to the appreciation of evidence, it would be
fruitful to spell out what Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act and Section
109 of IPC provide for. Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act reads as
under :
“13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.-
(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of
criminal misconduct. –
(a) …
to
(d) …
(e) 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.”
Whereas, Section 109 of IPC, with which accused no.2 is
charged, reads as under :
“109. Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is
committed in consequence and where no express provision
is made for its punishment.-
CriAppeal-776-2005
-7-Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is
committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express
provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such
abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for
the offence.
Explanation – An act or offence is said to be committed in
consequence of abetment, when it is committed in
consequence of the instigation, or in pursuance of the
conspiracy, or with the aid which constitutes the abetment.”
10. The evidence of PW61 IO is at Exhibit 207 and in his
examination-in-chief, he deposed that, initially he was called upon to
conduct confidential inquiry and tender report and after he did it, he
was accorded permission to register crime and even investigate it.
Though he himself having conducted preliminary inquiry and he
himself being complainant, he ought not to have acted as
Investigating Officer. Be it so. He claims to have constituted raiding
team comprising of police staff, panchas and then visited the premises
of accused for conducting house search, prepared inventories of the
articles, prepared panchanamas, seized documents, conducted inquiry
at Banks where accused maintained account and dispatched letter to
the Superintending Engineer to supply information about returns of
the properties submitted by accused. He sent prescribed formats and
CriAppeal-776-2005
-8-
got it filled and made it part of the investigation papers. He deposed
that, during investigation for the period from 04.09.1992 to
12.06.1995, he collected information from the known source of
income as well as his expenses and recorded statements of persons
with whom transactions of sale were made by accused and his wife.
However, he himself stated that, he was transferred and therefore he
handed over further investigation to officer Suryawanshi on
12.06.1995, who he claims to have carried out further investigation
and filed chargesheet. He has identified the documents, panchanamas
drawn during investigation by him. Here, admittedly, his successor
Suryawanshi has not been examined for the best reasons known to
the prosecution. Be it so.
While under cross, he answered that, as per the contents of FIR,
total income from salary of accused was to the tune of Rs.5,10,182/-,
but on confronting the chargesheet, he answered that total salary of
accused therein is mentioned to the tune of Rs.4,38,999/-. However,
in further cross he is unable to state which of these two figures is
correct.
In para 8 of the cross, he admitted that, household expenses of
accused worked out by him are 60% of the total salary earned by
accused i.e. to the tune of Rs.5,10,182/-, and he further answered
CriAppeal-776-2005
-9-
that consideration for the same was standard of living of the accused.
He admitted that, he did not seek explanation or clarification from
the accused regarding disproportionate assets prior to filing of FIR.
He also surprisingly admitted that the contents of the FIR, as regards
to accused not being in a position to give explanation, is his personal
opinion. He answered that, he had received directions to conduct
confidential inquiry but said letter is not forming part of the
Investigating papers. He also answered that, while conducting
inquiry, he recorded statements and drew report but the same is not
tendered in the court.
He admitted that, TA/DA of a Government employee is not a
part of income and is just reimbursement. He admitted that, it is
imperative to conduct investigation expeditiously, but in the instant
case, chargesheet was submitted four years after filing of FIR itself.
In para 11 he answered that, he did not try to obtain sanction
because its question did not arise as investigation was not complete
till he was transferred.
In para 12, he admitted about visiting land standing in the
name of accused no.2 Sandhya – wife of accused no.1, but he
admitted about not drawing any panchanama and therefore he was
CriAppeal-776-2005
-10-
not able to answer the questions posed to him about the availability of
lemon orchid and quantity of yield. However he admitted that,
accused no.2 sold lemons, jujubi and vegetables through commission
agents. He answered that, accused no.2 had purchased land from one
R.C. Mittal, but he did not record statement of said person. He
admitted that, during investigation it transpired that father, mother
and maternal uncle of accused no.2 had gifted her gold ornaments at
the time of marriage. But subsequently he denied by stating that
investigation did not reveal presents given by family members. He
answered that, during his investigation, it did not transpire that
accused no.2 was running private tuitions from 1976 to 1978, but he
admitted that she was earning income from her land and further
candidly admitted that, however, in the FIR it is stated that Sandhya
Kaul has no source of income.
In para 16 he admitted that accused won lottery worth
Rs.7,29,000/- and he also paid wealth tax and said income was
deposited in the bank. He admitted that, accused no.2 had sold her
gold ornaments but he did not collect its receipts and did not place it
in the court. He answered that, complaint was received against
accused for acquiring disproportionate assets but he did not get the
original complaint from the Head office. Rest are all denials.
CriAppeal-776-2005
-11-
11. Another crucial witness is PW13 Prakash Bhambre, who was
Superintending Engineer and he was examined on the point of
returns of accused with the department about his movable and
immovable acquisitions. This witness claims in his evidence at Exhibit
80 that information was gathered and supplied under his signature,
including details of service book of accused, which he identified to be
at Exhibit 82 to 86.
While under cross, he admitted that information in above
Exhibits was collected by the clerk and head clerk and they both had
retired. He answered that, ACB authorities did not call for original
record of their office and he was not carrying it with him in the court.
12. As regards to rest of the witnesses are concerned, who are
categorized as stated above as per their status, they merely those
persons who undertook the exercise of conducting inquiry of pay and
allowance, the bank officials who deposed on the point of bank
statements, the panchas on the point of various panchanamas and
witnesses to sale and purchase transactions of accused.
13. Therefore, what can be culled out from the evidence on behalf
of prosecution is that, first and foremost, before lodging FIR or
CriAppeal-776-2005
-12-
carrying out investigation, accused has not been called upon to offer
explanation regarding properties standing in the name of himself and
his wife and there is clear admission to that extent by IO. It was
imperative. In the case of N. P. Lolitkar v. CBI and another , reported
in 1993 Criminal Law Journal 2051, it has been observed that in
absence an opportunity being offered to accused, the question of his
failing to give satisfactory account does not arise. Therefore, there is
material lapse on the part of investigating machinery.
14. Secondly, none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution
could demonstrate that the income earned by accused was not from
the known source. Investigating machinery has further committed
blunder by not taking into account the income earned by spouse of
accused no.1, i.e. accused no.2, who admittedly had irrigated land in
her name which fetched her independent income. The IO admits to
this extent. Therefore, here, there was spouse’s independent source of
income but the same has not been counted for the best reasons
known to the IO. Case of accused no.2 that she also ran tuition classes
and earned, has not been refuted. Therefore, had the Investigating
Officer diligently inquired about spouse’s independent income which
might have been definitely contributed to the acquisition of
properties, she would not have been charged by applying Section 109
CriAppeal-776-2005
-13-
of IPC. Even properties are not shown to be standing in her name as
benami one. All her acquisitions are apparently accounted for and she
indisputably had her own agricultural income. Therefore, it was not
open for prosecution to club her independent acquisitions with that of
accused husband.
15. Further, though several voluminous bills and receipts are
shown to be seized, they are apparently not in the original form. Even
IO had not obtained original pay bills from the department. Mere
bank statements or statements of witnesses from said department
were insufficient to prove the charge. Again, as stated above, figures
projected in FIR under the head of salary and the one projected in the
charge sheet are at variance, of which there is admission by IO and
this itself demonstrates the manner in which inquiry/investigation has
been conducted.
16. Here, it is pointed out by learned counsel for accused that,
sanctioning authority was not examined. Reply of learned APP to the
same is that, accused had admitted the said sanction order along with
other papers. However, in the matters under the PC Act, grant of
sanction is considered as a sacrosanct act. Prosecution itself fails or is
held ab initio for want of valid sanction and therefore, it was
CriAppeal-776-2005
-14-
imperative for prosecution, even if the said sanction order was
admitted by the accused, to examine the sanctioning authority which
it had apparently failed to do.
17. In the light of above discussion and on complete re-
appreciation, prosecution does not seem to have proved the charges
beyond reasonable doubt. Experts in particular field for deriving
figures are apparently not engaged. Investigating Officer seems to
have drawn opinion on his own, that too, without any foundation.
Prosecution having failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable
doubt, no infirmity or error could be attributed on the part of trial
judge in acquitting the accused. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]
vre
