Thane, May 20 A court here has acquitted a suspended Income Tax Officer and his wife in a 2007 case of disproportionate assets, pulling up the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for an "erroneous" and "casual" investigation.
Invoking a Supreme Court precedent, Special CBI Court Judge DS Deshmukh on Tuesday said that a defendant in a corruption case does not need to prove innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, and a preponderance of probability is sufficient.
The court acquitted Anil Ratnakar Mallel (45), an Income Tax Officer then posted in Maharashtra's Thane, and his wife Suvarna Anil Mallel (43) of charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (abetment).
The CBI Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Mumbai, registered the case in January 2007, alleging that between September 1991 and December 2006, Anil Mallel misused his official position to amass wealth in his and his family's name.
While the initial FIR pegged the disproportionate assets at Rs 15.34 lakh, the CBI escalated the figure to Rs 28,57,984 in its final chargesheet filed in November 2008.
During the trial, defence lawyer MS More argued that the CBI completely ignored valid sources of cash flow, including a joint housing loan of Rs 8 lakh taken by Mallel's wife and his late mother, independent I-T returns filed by the wife since 2000, General Provident Fund withdrawals, and documented loans taken from relatives.
The CBI had also wrongfully classified Rs 2.43 lakh in cash found during a house search as Mallel's personal asset, despite formal letters sent to the agency by his mother claiming ownership of the money, he said.
The court, while striking down the prosecution's case, said various admissions by the investigation officer during cross-examination show that he has not properly considered the income of the accused.
It is also evident from the record that while lodging FIR, the disproportionate assets were calculated to the tune of Rs 15,35,000, but were to the tune of Rs 28,57,984 while filing the chargesheet, it noted.
The court said the prosecution's witness calculated the disproportionate assets by inflating the asset calculation, and without considering the documents in proper perspective.
"It also appeared from the documents that while considering the income of salary, the prosecution witness has considered the net salary, but while deducting the 1/3rd unverifiable expenses, he has deducted the expenses from the gross salary," it noted.
Thus, without considering the actual income of the accused persons, the prosecution witness has wrongly calculated their disproportionate assets. "His calculation caused great prejudice to both the accused," the court stated.
"The testimony of the prosecution witness in the cross-examination shows that his approach for granting the sanction is casual and without making any detailed investigation," it added.
