Judgment: The appellant has been convicted under section 5(1)(e) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 18 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 6 months, by the Special Judge, Bangalore Division, Bangalore. 2. The facts leading to the prosecution of the appellant, stated briefly, are these: The appellant is an Engineering Craduate. He was appointed as a Supervisor on 10th August, 1955, in the H.M.T. Bangalore. He was started on a salary of Rs.160 plus allowance of Rs.38-99 P. He served in that capacity till 1959, in which year he was promoted as a Foreman and his pay was raised in the scale of Rs.400-600. On 1st May, 1962, the appellant was promoted as Deputy Manager in the Civil Engineering Department in the pay scale of Rs.700-40-1100-50-1250. After the promotion as the Deputy Manager, he was transferred to other unit of H.M.T. at Kalamasserry in Kerala, a public sector undertaking managed by the Government of India. He was again transferred to Bangalore in November, 1964. During the period of this service from 1965 to 1965, the appellant had earned by way of salary and allowances a sum of Rs.62,872-67 P. During this period it is admitted, a sum of Rs.25,922-40 P. was deducted towards motor vehicle advance, provident fund, income-tax, insurance premium, house rent and other deductions. Thus, the appellant had received a net amount of Rs.38,679-77P. vide Exhibit P-188. During this period, the appellant had spent a sum of Rs.24,750 for maintenance of his family and for his personal expenses, as admitted by him in Exhibit P-250. 3. During this period, the appellant purchased 3 cars and sold 2 of them. By this transaction, he made a profit of Rs.2,750. On this point, the conclusion of the learned Judge appears to be not correct. Admittedly, the accused purchased 3 cars during this period, sold 2 of them and on the date he was charged, he was in possession of 1 car. Taking into consideration the transactions with reference to these 3 cars, the appellant had made a profit of Rs.2,750. He was maintaining a car for which necessarily he had to spend some amount. The learned Special Judge found that the appellant had spent a sum of Rs.6,000. Taking into consideration the transactions with reference to these 3 cars, the appellant had made a profit of Rs.2,750. He was maintaining a car for which necessarily he had to spend some amount. The learned Special Judge found that the appellant had spent a sum of Rs.6,000. towards the maintenance of the cars during the period although the appellant had shown having spent Rs.7,500 in the income-tax returns. It is not disputed that the appellant was paying premium of two insurance policies himself. The Special Judge took into consideration the statement of expenditure filed by the appellant vide Exhibit 1-250 on the basis of which he came to the conclusion that the appellant could have saved a sum of Rs.20, 628-67 P. 4. The evidence in this case shows, which is not disputed by the appellant, that he was in possession of properties worth Rs.78,000, which means that his assets were at least Rs.57,375, more than the known source of his income. The evidence on behalf of the prosecution itself shows that the appellant had raised loans to build a house from the Housing Board, L.I.C. and P.W.17, Channappa which amounted to Rs.32,227. If this amount is deducted from Rs.57,372, the appellant was in possession of properties worth Rs.26,000 in excess of his known source of income. This is also the finding of the Special Judge. 5. The defence of the appellant was that he was a member of a joint family consisting of himself and D.W. 1 and others, that he got from D.W. 1, who was the manager of the joint family, in all a sum of Rs.12,000 for construction of the building. He was getting food-grains from D.W. 1, towards the maintenance of his family and he realised a sum of Rs.1,000 by selling two sites to D.W. 2. Apart from this, the accused claimed deduction of Rs.1,428-90P., which he received by way of bonus vide Exhibit P-188 and Rs.2,208, assets possessed by him prior to 1965, as admitted by the prosecution itself vide Exhibit P-242. A sum of Rs.2,750 is the profit that he realised in the car transaction. According to him, if all these amounts were taken into consideration, he was not in possession of properties worth more than his known source of income, except properties worth Rs.7,000 or so. 6. A sum of Rs.2,750 is the profit that he realised in the car transaction. According to him, if all these amounts were taken into consideration, he was not in possession of properties worth more than his known source of income, except properties worth Rs.7,000 or so. 6. The learned Special Judge, after discussing the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and on behalf of the accused, held: “From the foregoing discussion, I have definitely come to the conclusion that the accused cannot satisfactorily account to the extent of at least Rs.25,000.” Assuming for the sake of argument what the prosecution has stated is true, the question for consideration is, whether the accused has given satisfactory explanation for being in possession of properties as valued by the prosecution itself. The learned Special Judge has taken into consideration most of the statements furnished by the accused as true, and after taking those statements into consideration has arrived at the conclusion that the accused was still in excess of properties of at least Rs.25,000, beyond his known source of income. The learned Judge obviously has made an error in not taking into consideration the income of the appellant from the joint family, consisting of himself, D.W.1 and others. D.W.1 has given evidence to the effect that he was the manager of the joint family consisting of himself, the accused and others and he was in possession of a large extent of wet and dry lands and was also in possession of fruit-bearing trees, from which he was deriving considerable income. He has deposed that he was supplying foodgrains to the appellant from which the appellant was maintaining his family, to a certain extent. According to him, the appellant was short of funds to construct his house and therefore he asked him to give him Rs.9,000, in the first instance and later took from him a sum of Rs.3,000, for constructing the house. He has stated that he has paid the said amount from out of the joint family funis. Taking into consideration the extent of property that the joint family was holding and the income that it was deriving from the lands and also from the fruit-bearing trees, there is nothing to disbelieve the version of D.W. 1, in this behalf. He has stated that he has paid the said amount from out of the joint family funis. Taking into consideration the extent of property that the joint family was holding and the income that it was deriving from the lands and also from the fruit-bearing trees, there is nothing to disbelieve the version of D.W. 1, in this behalf. The conclusion of the learned Judge that D.W.l, was not in a position to pay any sum to the appellant is not based upon any material. If he had carefully scrutinised the evidence of D.W.1, that evidence would have conclusively established the truth of the statement of the appellant that he took a sum of Rs.12,000, from D.W.1, for constructing the building. 7. Admittedly, the appellant got a bonus of Rs.1,428-90P and that necessarily is an income which has got to be added to other income of the appellant. It is not disputed in this case that the appellant was in possession of assets to the extent of Rs.2,200 prior to 1955. The evidence of D.W. 2, shows that the accused realised a profit of Rs.1,000, by sale of two sites to him. There is also nothing to disbelieve his evidence. The learned Judge has not taken these amounts into consideration. If he had taken these amounts into consideration, he would not have come to the conclusion now arrived at by him. 8. To sustain a charge under subsection (e) of section 5 of the Act, the prosecution has to show that-(1) the appellant is or was a public servant; (2) he himself or on his behalf someone else; (3.) possessed or has at any time during the tenure of his office has been in possession of; (4) pecuniary resources disproportionate to his known source of income for which the accused cannot satisfactorily account for. The Legislature has not chosen to indicate what proportion could be considered disproportionate and the Court may take a liberal view of the excess of the assets over the receipts of the known sources of income. The Legislature has not chosen to indicate what proportion could be considered disproportionate and the Court may take a liberal view of the excess of the assets over the receipts of the known sources of income. While it is quite true that pecuniary resources and property are themselves sources of income that does not present any difficulty in understanding a position that at a particular point of time the total pecuniary resources or property can be regarded as assets, and an attempt being made to see whether the known sources of income including, it may be, these very items of property in the past could yield such income as to explain reasonably the emergence of these assets at the relevant point of time. Taking the most liberal view, which has got to be taken in such cases, if the pecuniary resources of the appellant is taken into consideration during the period in question, it cannot be said that it, in any view of the matter, exceeded his known source of income. On the other hand, what emerges out is that in all probability he must have acquired the assets from known source of income, such as from his salary or from the joint family funds or the monies that he borrowed from others or from the loans that he raised. 9. But, it is difficult to hold, on the facts of this case, that the appellant acquired these assets through any other sources, excepting by known source of income, which I have indicated above. At the time when the appellant was charged, he was getting a fairly good salary. The appellant is an Engineering Graduate and was appointed as a supervisor in the first instance and he was getting a salary of about Rs.250, and between 1955 and 1965, he was promoted to-various grades and he was getting salaries varying between Rs.500 to Rs.900. Although there is no evidence to indicate that he saved anything out of his salary taking into consideration the society in which the appellant is living and the fact that he was a member of a joint family which consisted of (owned) extensive properties which were yielding considerable income, it cannot be said that he could not have acquired the assets even without borrowing monies. Taking into consideration his status and the income that he was deriving by himself and by other sources, excess assets if any as stated by the prosecution could only have been acquired by known source of income and not by any other source. 10. In cases of this nature, it is not correct to apply exact mathematics and on the basis of it to hold that he is in excess of few thousands of rupees. We have got to take an overall picture of the situation and decide whether the assets are disproportionate to the known source of income. If the question is answered in the affirmative, then only the accused is liable to be convicted under clause (e) of section 5 of the Act. Otherwise, he cannot be convicted for the said offence. 11. For the reasons stated above, I disagree with the finding of the learned Special Judge and hold that the prosecution have failed to prove that the accused was, during the period in question, in possession of assets disproportionate to his known source of income, and set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant and acquit him. S.V.S. ----- Conviction and sentence set aside.