Pune: A Special CBI-ACB court in Pune on August 24 sentenced former GST superintendent Vivek Madhukar Dekate to four years’ rigorous imprisonment (RI) and his wife, Lalita Dekate, to three years’ RI in a disproportionate assets case involving ₹38.17 lakh in assets allegedly beyond their known sources of income.
Special Judge Rajendra R Mendhe pronounced the judgment, convicting Dekate under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Lalita under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with the relevant anti-corruption provision.
The court imposed fines of ₹3.50 lakh on Vivek and ₹5,000 on Lalita. In default, they will undergo an additional six months’ and one month’s RI, respectively.
Dekate, 54, was superintendent, Goods and Services Tax, Headquarters Preventive Unit, Pune, during the check period from January 1, 2016, to March 26, 2019. His wife, 47, was a homemaker. The CBI-ACB registered the FIR on March 30, 2019.
According to the judgment, the case stemmed from a trap case in which Vivek Dekate was “caught red-handed in a trap case”. The CBI subsequently registered a regular case against the couple based on a Source Information Report.
The prosecution initially assessed the disproportionate assets at ₹32.15 lakh, or 97.85% of known income. After investigation, the amount was revised to ₹38.17 lakh, or 108.48%.
{{/usCountry}}The prosecution initially assessed the disproportionate assets at ₹32.15 lakh, or 97.85% of known income. After investigation, the amount was revised to ₹38.17 lakh, or 108.48%.
{{/usCountry}}The court found that the couple’s assets rose from ₹32.70 lakh at the beginning of the check period to ₹80.32 lakh at the end. Their income was assessed at ₹35.19 lakh and expenditure at ₹25.75 lakh, leaving likely savings of ₹9.44 lakh.
A key piece of evidence was ₹20.75 lakh in cash recovered from Vivek’s residence during a CBI search on March 26, 2019. Other assets included a Yerwada flat, a Honda Brio, fixed deposits and mutual fund investments.
The couple’s income included government salary and payments, Pay Commission arrears, leave travel concession, bank interest, LIC maturity amounts and rental income.
The prosecution alleged that Lalita helped her husband accumulate disproportionate assets by holding assets in her name. The defence disputed the calculations and cited various income and property-related explanations. Lalita also claimed income from home tuition.
The court rejected the explanations and held that the couple had failed to satisfactorily account for their assets. The judgment states that Vivek “intentionally enriched himself & his wife illicitly” during the check period.
However, Dekate’s wife was granted bail by same court so that she can file appeal before higher court in thirty days.
The defence sought leniency, citing the couple’s two daughters. The CBI opposed the plea, saying corruption amounted to a betrayal of public trust.
Rejecting the plea, the court observed, “It is pertinent to mention that the offence proved against the accused is very serious and against the society. The act of a person to amass property by corrupt means causes prejudice to the society at large.”