HC exonerates bank manager in disproportionate assets case

Shyam Prasad | NT

Bengaluru: A manager of Canara Bank here was acquitted in a disproportionate assets case as the High Court found that the ‘check period’ alleging corruption against him was too short. “I find that the check period from 1.5.2004 to 9.5.2006 is too short for comprehending the correct figures,” the HC said.

Citing an earlier Supreme Court judgment, the HC Said, “The choice of the period must necessarily be determined by the allegations of fact on which the prosecution is founded and rests. However, the period must be such as to enable a true and comprehensive picture of the known sources of income and the pecuniary resources and property in possession of by the publicservant either by himself or through any other person on his behalf, which are alleged to be so disproportionate.” A raid was conducted on VD Kurtakoti, who was working as manager of Canara Bank, Sindhaghatta Branch in Mandya on May 9, 2006 by the CBI.

He was charged with possession of disproportionate assets worth Rs.12,26,906 above his known sources of income. The case went to the Trial Court which found that the disproportionate assets he possessed was Rs.3,73,674. The Trial Court sentenced Kurtakoti to two years simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.50,000.

He challenged the order in the High Court in 2011 and the judgment was delivered by Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar in December 2022. Taking note of Kurtakoti’s other income, the HC said that proceeds from National Saving Certificate of Rs.86,500 and income from agriculture of Rs.72,000 was not considered by the CBI and the Trial Court.

If these are added the difference between the sources of income and the disproportionate assets would be less than 10 per cent. Therefore he cannot be convicted as per the Supreme Court’s decision in Krishnananda Agnihotri Vs State of Madhya Pradesh, the HC said.

Allowing the appeal filed by Kiurtakoti and setting aside the conviction by the lower court, Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar said, “From the above discussion, I come to the conclusion that the appeal deserves to be allowed. The judgment of conviction is set aside. The accused is acquitted of the offence with which he stood charged.”