2 hrs ago
Mumbai Court Acquits Couple in ₹16.40-Lakh Assets Case
A court in Mumbai cleared a former government inspector and his wife of wrongdoing.
The case was about whether they owned more money and property than their legal income could explain.
Investigators said the couple had ₹16.40 lakh in disproportionate assets.
They said the couple’s legitimate income during the review period was ₹6.3 lakh.
The couple’s lawyer argued that investigators had left out important income and financial records.
The lawyer also said the couple’s previous earnings were wrongly treated as zero.
The court found several problems in the investigators’ calculations.
Because the prosecution did not prove its case completely, the court acquitted both people.
A special CBI court acquitted former Central Excise inspector Vasudeo Mhapsekar and his wife, Shilpa, in a disproportionate-assets case.
The case, registered in 2007, concerned the period from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2007.
The prosecution alleged that the couple had ₹16.40 lakh in disproportionate assets against ₹6.3 lakh in legitimate income.
The defence challenged the CBI’s calculations and said the couple’s earlier income and family finances were wrongly assessed.
The court found the prosecution had not proved complete account statements, assets, income, expenses and the flat’s purchase consideration.
- Who
- Former Central Excise inspector Vasudeo Mhapsekar and his wife, Shilpa; the Central Bureau of Investigation prosecuted the case.
- What
- A special CBI court acquitted the couple in a disproportionate-assets case involving an alleged ₹16.40 lakh.
- Where
- Mumbai, before a special CBI court.
- When
- The alleged check period was January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2007; the case was lodged in 2007, and the acquittal was reported on October 2, 2026.
- Why
- The court found shortcomings in the prosecution’s calculations and said key financial records and the flat’s purchase details had not been properly proved.
Prosecution’s Case
Defence and Court’s Findings
Income and assets calculation
Prosecution’s Case
The CBI alleged that the couple’s legitimate income was ₹6.3 lakh and that they had accumulated ₹16.40 lakh in disproportionate assets.
Defence and Court’s Findings
The defence argued that the CBI wrongly calculated the couple’s income, expenditure and joint assets, including by treating Vasudeo’s assets at the start of the period as nil.
Financial records
Prosecution’s Case
The prosecution presented its assessment of the couple’s income, expenses and assets during the check period.
Defence and Court’s Findings
The defence said material records favourable to the couple were suppressed, and the court found that complete account statements and several income components had not been proved.
Flat and family assets
Prosecution’s Case
The prosecution included the disputed financial calculations and asset assessment in its case.
Defence and Court’s Findings
The court said the prosecution failed to prove the flat’s consideration amount and title document and wrongly considered the income, expenses and assets of Vasudeo’s parents.
Key facts
- Accused
- Vasudeo Mhapsekar, former Inspector, Central Excise, Thane-I Commissionerate, and his wife, Shilpa, an Assistant Administrative Officer at LIC.
- Case type
- Disproportionate-assets prosecution.
- Alleged disproportionate assets
- ₹16.40 lakh.
- Prosecution’s stated legitimate income
- ₹6.3 lakh during the check period.
- Check period
- January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2007.
- Case filed
- 2007.
- Court finding
- The CBI did not prove complete account statements, accrued interest, dividends, allowances, service benefits, certain family finances and the flat’s consideration and title documents.
Quotes
Special CBI Court
The Mumbai court that heard the disproportionate-assets case.
“It has failed to produce and prove complete account statements of accused. It has failed to consider the accrued interest, dividend, allowances and other service benefits, such as travelling allowances, and other benefits etc. of both accused. It has wrongly considered the joint income, expenses and assets of parents of Vasudeo.”
freepressjournal.in
“It has failed to prove the payment of consideration amount of the Flat by the couple, and the document of title. It has failed to produce and prove complete account statements of accused,”
freepressjournal.in
Sources
Related news
CBI Books Bhopal India Post Inspector Over Disproportionate Assets
Former Khargone Engineer Sentenced Five Years in Assets Case
Hyderabad Court Sentences Cotton Official, Wife in Disproportionate Assets Case
CBI Probes Former Bank of India Manager Over ₹1.24 Crore
CBI Alleges Former Railway DRM Held ₹2.19 Crore Assets
ED Attaches ₹1.64 Crore Assets of Former MP Official, Wife
Private Bank Employees Outpace Public Sector Staff in Productivity
CBI Files Second Chargesheet in Reliance Home Finance Fraud Case
Former LIC Assistant Gets 10 Years in ₹6.37-Crore Fraud
Insurance Commission Reform Has Right Direction, But Uncertain Pace
