GST ex-superintendent gets 4 years in jail in disproportionate assets case, wife sentenced for 3 years | Pune News


GST ex-superintendent gets 4 years in jail in disproportionate assets case, wife sentenced for 3 years
A fine of Rs3.5 lakh was imposed on former superintendent of GST

Pune: The court of special judge (CBI-ACB) R R Mendhe sent a former superintendent of GST to four years’ rigorous imprisonment for amassing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, while his wife was sentenced for three years for abetting the offence.Vivek Madhukar Dekate, then superintendent with the GST department in Pune, was found guilty under the Prevention of Corruption Act. A fine of Rs3.5 lakh was imposed on him. His wife, Lalita Vivek Dekate, was convicted for abetment and sentenced to three years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 5,000. The judgment was pronounced on Monday.The court suspended Lalita’s three-year sentence on the same day pending her proposed appeal before the high court. It noted that she had remained on bail throughout the trial, regularly attended proceedings and paid the fine.Public prosecutor Prakash Kumar Soni said CBI had conducted a raid on the house of then GST superintendent on March 26, 2019. The CBI officials found Rs20.75 lakh concealed in a drawer of a cupboard in the couple’s common bedroom in their Yerawada house. The search also led to seizure of property documents, receipts and other articles.The CBI subsequently registered a disproportionate assets case covering Jan 1, 2016, to March 26, 2019. Investigating officer Amol Nandekar told the court that the agency examined the couple’s assets, income and expenditure through statements. The trial court, after assessing the evidence and giving the accused benefit on some entries, finally determined the disproportionate assets at Rs35.55 lakh.The defence argued that Lalita had independent income from rent and private tuition, and that the cash found at the house was linked to the sale of her property. The court rejected the explanation, holding that the accused had failed to produce enough evidence to establish the lawful source of the assets. It also held that Lalita had aided Vivek by allowing property transactions to be handled through him and that her conduct showed she was acting “hand in glove” with him.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *