Bhima Razu Prasad vs State Rep. By Deputy

Case Name:	Bhima Razu Prasad vs State Rep. By Deputy
Equivalent Citation:	Criminal Appeal No. 305 of 2021
Date of Judgement:	12 March, 2021
Court:	Supreme  Court
Appellants:	Bhima Razu Prasad
Respondent:	State, rep. ByDeputy Superintendent of Police,CBI/SPE/ACU­II
Bench:	Mohan M.ShantanagoudarVineet Saran

FACT OF THE CASE

• Bhima Razu Prasad, the former Regional Manager (South) of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd., was accused of having assets that were disproportionate to his known sources of income and forging documents to justify them.
• On 24.01.2001, the officers of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) searched his residence and seized Rs. 79,65,900/- in cash, jewellery and property papers.
• He claimed that the seized currency was part of a loan transaction with two other persons, V.S. Krishnan and Murugesan, who were also charged as co-accused in the case.
• He produced some documents to show that he had borrowed Rs. 75 lakhs from Krishnan and Rs. 5 lakhs from Murugesan on 23.01.2001 and repaid them on 25.01.2001.
• The CBI alleged that these documents were fabricated and false, and that Prasad had obtained the currency from illegal sources.
• The CBI also found that Prasad had acquired several immovable properties in his name and in the name of his family members, which were beyond his legitimate income.
• The CBI filed a charge sheet against Prasad and the co-accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act).
• The trial court convicted Prasad and sentenced him to five years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10 lakhs. The co-accused were acquitted.
• Prasad appealed to the High Court of Madras, which confirmed the conviction and sentence of the trial court.
• Prasad further appealed to the Supreme Court of India, which dismissed his appeal on 12.03.2021 and upheld the findings of the lower courts.

ISSUE RAISED

1. Whether the seized currency of Rs. 79,65,900/- was part of a loan transaction between the Appellant and the co-accused, or obtained from illegal sources.
2. Whether the documents produced by the Appellant to show the loan transaction were fabricated and false, or genuine and valid.
3. Whether the Appellant had acquired several immovable properties in his name and in the name of his family members, which were beyond his legitimate income.
4. Whether the Appellant had abused his official position as Regional Manager (South) of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. and obtained pecuniary advantage for himself or for others.

CONTENTION OF APPELLANT

• The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence for possessing disproportionate assets and forging documents to justify them.
• The appellant claimed that the seized currency of Rs. 79,65,900/- was part of a loan transaction between him and the co-accused, V.S. Krishnan and Murugesan, who were his friends and business partners.
• The appellant produced some documents to show that he had borrowed Rs. 75 lakhs from Krishnan and Rs. 5 lakhs from Murugesan on 23.01.2001 and repaid them on 25.01.2001 by cheque and cash.
• The appellant contended that these documents were genuine and valid, and that the prosecution had failed to prove that they were fabricated and false.
• The appellant also argued that the prosecution had not established that he had acquired several immovable properties in his name and in the name of his family members, which were beyond his legitimate income.
• The appellant submitted that some of the properties were purchased by his wife from her own income and savings, and some were inherited by him from his father.
• The appellant further contended that the prosecution had not proved that he had abused his official position as Regional Manager (South) of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. and obtained pecuniary advantage for himself or for others.
• The appellant relied on some judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts to support his case.
• The appellant sought acquittal from all the charges against him.
• The appellant prayed for leniency in case his conviction was upheld, on the grounds of his old age, ill health, family responsibilities, and long pendency of the case.

CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT

1. The respondent supported the conviction and sentence of the appellant for possessing disproportionate assets and forging documents to justify them.
2. The respondent alleged that the seized currency of Rs. 79,65,900/- was obtained by the appellant from illegal sources, and that he had created a false story of loan transaction with the co-accused to cover up his crime.
3. The respondent produced some evidence to show that the documents produced by the appellant to show the loan transaction were fabricated and false, such as discrepancies in dates, signatures, stamps, bank accounts, etc.
4. The respondent also produced some evidence to show that the appellant had acquired several immovable properties in his name and in the name of his family members, which were beyond his legitimate income, such as sale deeds, registration certificates, valuation reports, etc.
5. The respondent submitted that the appellant had failed to explain the source of his income and expenditure for acquiring these properties, and that he had tried to conceal them by not disclosing them in his income tax returns or wealth statements.
6. The respondent further submitted that the appellant had abused his official position as Regional Manager (South) of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. and obtained pecuniary advantage for himself or for others, by indulging in corruption, fraud, cheating, forgery, etc.
7. The respondent relied on some judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts to support his case.
8. The respondent opposed any acquittal or reduction of sentence for the appellant.
9. The respondent argued that the appellant deserved no sympathy or mercy, as he had committed a serious offence against public interest and morality.
10. The respondent prayed for dismissal of the appeal filed by the appellant.

JUDGEMENT 

The judgment of the case of Bhima Razu Prasad vs State Rep. By Deputy Superintendent of Police on 12 March, 2021 was delivered by the Supreme Court of India, which dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant Bhima Razu Prasad and upheld his conviction and sentence for possessing disproportionate assets and forging documents to justify them. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the trial court and the High Court, which had held that the appellant had acquired several immovable properties in his name and in the name of his family members, which were beyond his legitimate income, and that he had fabricated a false story of loan transaction with the co-accused to explain the seized currency of Rs. 79,65,900/- from his residence. The Supreme Court also rejected the appellant’s plea for leniency on the grounds of his old age, ill health, family responsibilities, and long pendency of the case. The Supreme Court imposed a sentence of five years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10 lakhs on the appellant under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

CONCLUSION 

The conclusion of the case of Bhima Razu Prasad vs State Rep. By Deputy Superintendent of Police on 12 March, 2021 is that the Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal of Bhima Razu Prasad, who was convicted and sentenced for possessing disproportionate assets and forging documents to justify them. The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the lower courts, which had held that Prasad had acquired several properties beyond his income and had created a false story of loan transaction with his co-accused to explain the seized currency from his residence. The Supreme Court also rejected Prasad’s plea for leniency on the grounds of his old age, ill health, family responsibilities, and long pendency of the case. The Supreme Court imposed a sentence of five years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10 lakhs on Prasad under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

written by Shri Vaishnavi intern under legal vidhiya.