Supreme Court upholds conviction of former Sub Registrar for disproportionate assets

The Supreme Court reviewed whether the assets acquired during his tenure were disproportionate to his known sources of income and whether the lower courts' calculations and sentencing were correct.

Who it concerns: Appellant: V. Gopalakrishanan (Former Sub Registrar); Respondent: The State of Kerala; Bench: Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva.

What the court decided

• The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the Appellant under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
• The Court rejected the Appellant's arguments regarding the valuation of a commercial cum residential building and household expenditure, noting that even if his claimed reductions were accepted, the assets would still remain disproportionate to his income.
• The Court affirmed the High Court's reduction of the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (with a default clause of three months' imprisonment), which was lower than the original sentence of two years and Rs. 5,50,000/- fine imposed by the Trial Court.

Also in the document

• The Court noted that the computed disproportionate assets were initially assessed at Rs. 5,25,129/-, which was over 50% of the Appellant's and his family's income during the check period.
• The Court cited the precedent of Krishnanand Agnihotri versus State of Madhya Pradesh, noting that an excess of less than 10% might not justify the presumption, but in this case, the excess was significantly higher.
• The Court found that the Appellant failed to produce cogent material to contradict the prosecution's valuation of the building, which was based on PWD rates, and that his own notebook entries were not kept in the ordinary course of business.