MR. T. JAYARAM v. MR. B.J. KUMAR

of the appeal, accused died and his son-Sri. B. J. Kumar is brought on record to prosecute the appeal.

#3. As per the order sheet dated 26.06.2025, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he was instructed to address the argument only on the quantum of fine imposed, without challenging the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court. Learned counsel for the appellant who is on record at present also undertook to restrict his argument only with regard to fine amount imposed by the Trial Court, as the accused is already dead.

#4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, the FIR came to be registered on 25.04.1995. The date of judgment by the Trial Court is on 05.12.2011 i.e. after lapse of 16 years. During search, cash of `6,73,390/- and gold jewellery weighing 380 grams were found in the house of the accused. The gold jewellery weighing 380 grams were valued by the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:26968 CRL.A No. 1322 of 2011 HC-KAR Investigating Officer at Rs.1,68,937/-. Both the cash and the jewellery were ordered to be confiscated by the Trial Court.

#5. It is submitted the Trial Court found that the accused accumulated disproportionate assets Rs.19,09,744.05/-. Deducting the value of the cash and the value of gold jewellery, the Trial Court found that the accused is liable for accumulation of disproportionate assets worth of Rs.10,67,417.05/-. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in N. Naveen Kumar and Others v/s State of Andhra Pradesh1, the Court has imposed fine at 3 times the disproportionate asset i.e. Rs.10,67,417.05/- x 3 = Rs.32,02,252.15/-.

#6. Learned counsel submits that within 16 years, the property will not appreciate by three times. Section 16 of the P.C. Act deals with matters to be taken into consideration for imposing fine. It provides that, while the Court is fixing the amount of fine for the offence referred to clause (e) of sub- section (1) of section 13, the pecuniary resources or property referred to in that clause for which the accused person is 1 2008 (9) SCC 800 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:26968 CRL.A No. 1322 of 2011 HC-KAR unable to account satisfactorily to be consideration."

#7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that, the original accused is no more. The applicant is the son of the accused. He is uniquely disabled person with 80% disability. Since the gold and cash seized from the house of the accused are already confiscated, he restricts his submission only with regard to reducing the fine amount and to impose a reasonable amounts fine instead of Rs.32,02,251/-. Hence, prays for showing leniency in the matter.

#8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposing the contention taken by the appellant contended that, after full-fledged trial, the Trial Court passed the impugned judgment and quantified the disproportionate asset imposing fine by referring to Section 16 of PC Act. There is no illegality or perversity in the said order. Since, there is no merit in the present appeal, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

#9. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:26968 CRL.A No. 1322 of 2011 HC-KAR “Whether the appellant has made out any grounds to reduce the fine amount imposed by the Trial Court? My answer to the above point is 'partly in the affirmative' for the following: REASONS

#10. It is the contention of the prosecution that, accused being the public servant was found in possession of pecuniary resources of Rs.15,75,391.55/-, where he possessed properties worth Rs.27,54,697.60/-, and after taking into consideration the expenditures incurred by the accused during the check period, he accumulated property worth Rs.22,51,303.05/- disproportionate to his known source of income and thereby, he has committed the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) r/w Section 13(2) of PC Act. The accused contested the matter before the Trial Court, and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence came to be passed, holding that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) r/w Section 13(2) of PC Act and accordingly, he was convicted. While sentencing the accused, the Court placed reliance on the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:26968 CRL.A No. 1322 of 2011 HC-KAR decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in N. Naveen Kumar and others (supra) to impose fine of Rs.32,02,252.15/-, which is three times the disproportionate assets accumulated by the accused, as it was quantified as Rs.10,67,417.05/-

#11. The decision in N. Naveen Kumar and others (supra) may not be applicable to the present case as in the said case, the immovable properties belonging to the accused which were held to be disproportionate to the known source of income were directed to be sold by public auction and sale proceeds was proposed to be appropriated by the State. The accused wanted to retain the property and under such circumstances, the Court held that if the accused wants to retain the property, he may have to pay thrice the value of the property. The facts of this case are entirely different.

#12. The gold jewelry and the cash referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant were confiscated by the Trial Court. The disproportionate quantified Rs.10,67,417.05/-. Section 16 of PC Act deals with consideration for fixing the amount of fine. However, this Section does not say that, value of the property to be taken - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:26968 CRL.A No. 1322 of 2011 HC-KAR into consideration was as on the date of conviction. Taking into consideration the value of the property as on the date of offence, the Trial Court valued the same and found out that accused was in possession of the disproportionate asset. The offence was unearthed during 1995 and he was convicted during December-2011. Now the original appellant - accused is no more and the present appellant being the son of the accused was permitted to prosecute the appeal. Taking consideration all these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the quantum of fine amount imposed by the Trial Court could be modified in the interest of justice in the light of the submissions made by the appellant.

#13. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed a memo, which reads as under: "That the appellant is hereby undertake to abide by the order of this Court to be passed in connection with the fine amount. He further undertakes to deposit the fine amount as ordered by this Court within 6 months from today. In the event of his failure to comply the order within 6 months he will undertake and running the risk of deposing the entire fine amount as ordered by the Trial Court." - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:26968 CRL.A No. 1322 of 2011 HC-KAR Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection to consider the memo, since the accused / appellant is already dead and his son is prosecuting the matter.

#14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the present appellant being the son of the deceased who is physically present and identified by the learned counsel for the appellant, is having locomotive disability of 80% for which he has produced the copy of Unique Disability ID issued by the Government of India, I am of the opinion that the fine of Rs.32,02,251.15 imposed by the Trial Court is to be modified and reduced to Rs.15,00,000/- to be paid by the appellant herein, within six months from today. If in case, the appellant fails to deposit the fine amount within six months as undertaken in the memo filed by the appellant, he will not be entitled to the benefit of this order. But on the other hand, he will have to pay the entire fine amount of Rs.32,02,251.15 as ordered by the Trial Court. Accordingly, I answer the above point 'partly in the affirmative' and proceed to pass the following: - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:26968 CRL.A No. 1322 of 2011 HC-KAR ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part; ii. The judgment of conviction dated 05.12.2011 passed in Special Case.No.55 of 1999 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge at Mysuru, is hereby confirmed. iii. The order of sentence passed by the Trial Court to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of P.C Act, is set aside in view of death of the accused. iv. The fine imposed by the Trial Court is modified as under: (a) The appellant is directed to pay fine amount of Rs.15,00,000./- within six months from today, failing which, he is not entitled for the benefit of this order and original order to pay fine amount Rs.32,02,251.15/- will be restored. The fine amount if not paid is liable to be recovered as - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:26968 CRL.A No. 1322 of 2011 HC-KAR arrears of land revenue due from the present appellant. Registry to send back the TCR along with copy of this judgment for information and for needful action. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE MKM CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12