JUDGMENT M.S. Ratnaparkhi, J. - The order of conviction and sentence and also the order regarding the disposal of property passed by the Special Judge, Akola on 27-2-1984 in Special Case No. 1 of 1983 convicting the original petitioner accused Purushottam Awadhut Kulkarni of the offence punishable under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for two years, fine of Rs. 2,000/- or in default to undergo further rigorous Imprisonment for six months and further forfeiting the gold ornaments weighing 6.80.400 grams, 2 kilograms of silver and cash worth Rs. 2,878/- has been challenged in this appeal. 2. The deceased Purushottam Awadhut Kulkarni and his brother Prabhakar A wadhut Kulkarni left their original place Jalgaon after secondary education and came to Akola in 1955 or so. Purushottam got an employment in the Agriculture Department of the erstwhile Government of Madhya Pradesh. He was appointed as agricultural assistant and continued in the service. His brother Prabhakar was appointed initially as Daftari in the office of Inspector of Factories, Akola in 1955. He was however, promoted as clerk within two years and continued to serve in the same office. Purushottam was married to original accused No. 2 Pramodini sometimes in 12,58. Prabhakar was married to original accused No. 4 Pratibha sometimes in 1964. Initially Purushottam and Prabhakar were staying jointly under the same roof and were enjoying the common mess. Their respective wives joined them and they were all having common mess and common shelter. It is enough to point out at this stage that Pratibha prior to her marriage was serving as a Nurse at Chalisgaon. She continued to serve even after her marriage for about 2 years. She was after the marriage, posted at village Agar where she was serving. She gave up her service sometimes in 1966. 3. Saraswatibai was the mother of Purushottam and Prabhakar. She was staying with her husband at Jalgaon. However, her husband died sometime in 1961 or so. She continued to stay there for about 2 or 3 years more and after winding up everything at Jalgaon, she came to stay with her sons at Akola in 1965. She continued to stay with her sons under the same shelter till her death which occurred sometime in 1982. This factual position has not been controverted. 4. She continued to stay there for about 2 or 3 years more and after winding up everything at Jalgaon, she came to stay with her sons at Akola in 1965. She continued to stay with her sons under the same shelter till her death which occurred sometime in 1982. This factual position has not been controverted. 4. The prosecution came before the court with the case that the accused Purushottam and Prabhakar came from the family which was financially very humble. They anyhow completed their secondary education and without pursuing further higher education they were forced to earn. That is why they joined mediocre service in 1955. They had no other source of income. Till 1966, the family had only one source, namely the salary of Purushottam and Prabhakar and salary of Pratibha (for about 2 years after her marriage). This salary was just sufficient to maintain the family. There was hardly any possibility of saving. In or about 1973 or so, the Anti-Corruption Bureau at Akola received a unanimous letter contending that the accused Purushottam and Prabhakar have amassed considerable property, moveable as well as immoveable and this acquisition was disproportionate to the known sources of their income. A secret enquiry came to be made and the offence came to be registered. During the investigation it was found that the accused Purushottam and Prabhakar purchased land worth Rs. 54,900/-. It was also found that they had amassed huge moveable property consisting of gold, silver, cash, buffaloes, rickshaws etc. etc. worth thousands of rupees. It was also found that they had amassed the house property and other moveable property worth Rs. 1,08,780/- at different places like Akola, Umari, Agar etc. The Investigating machinery found that the known source of their income was only salary which was hardly Rs. 1,03,500/-. Thus, according to the prosecution, the accused were found in possession of the assets disproportionate to the known source of their income. Most of the property was purchased in the name of their respective wives, who had no ostensible means of income. 5. On this investigation, a charge-sheet came to be put up against Purushottam, his wife, Pramodini, Prabhakar and his wife Pratibha accusing them of the offences punishable under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 6. A charge under Section 5(1)(e) came to be framed against all the accused. 5. On this investigation, a charge-sheet came to be put up against Purushottam, his wife, Pramodini, Prabhakar and his wife Pratibha accusing them of the offences punishable under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 6. A charge under Section 5(1)(e) came to be framed against all the accused. Each of them pleaded not guilty to the same and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused was hat the father of accused No. 1 Purushottam was the Watandar in Jalgaon District. As a Watandar he had gold, silver and other property. He left the village for good and settled at Jalgaon. He was running a grocery shop. He had a very lucrative business. However, he died in 1961 and thereafter accused No. 1's mother came to stay with him at Akola in 1965. She had brought with her about 70 tolas of gold and cash worth Rs. 30,000/-. Thus they alleged that their family had the property consisting of cash and gold ornaments as above. From this property and the other savings they started purchasing agricultural lands. Their mother purchased 4 acres of land at Anantpur near Akola in - 1966 for Rs. 1,000/-. Thereafter 10 acres of land came to be purchased in 1968 for Rs. 9,000/-. In 1969 they purchased 12 acres of land for Rs. 7,000/-. In 1970 they purchased 9 acres 3 gunthas of land for Rs. 14,500/-. In 1971 they purchased 21 acres 3 gunthas of land for Rs. 34,000/-. 7. It is their further contention that in 1967, a plot worth Rs. 5,000/- was purchased in Jatharpeth, Akola. In 1968 a house at Umari had been purchased for Rs. 1,250/-. In 1969 a house at Agar was purchased for Rs. 1,500/-. In 1970 they purchased one house in Ramdaspeth, Akola for Rs. 15,000/-. In 1967 they constructed ground floor over the plot purchased in 1967 and this structure was constructed at the cost of 'Rs. 25,000/- or Rs. 30,000/-. In 1971, they constructed first floor and second floor over that plot and spent Rs. 65,000/- over that. They purchased buffaloes and started their milk business. This was also of the sources of their income. They had also purchased 4 rickshaws which also yielded them an income. 25,000/- or Rs. 30,000/-. In 1971, they constructed first floor and second floor over that plot and spent Rs. 65,000/- over that. They purchased buffaloes and started their milk business. This was also of the sources of their income. They had also purchased 4 rickshaws which also yielded them an income. The houses in Ramdaspeth which they purchased and the house in Jatarpeth, which they constructed were let out to tenants and they also fetched them good rent. They have also taken some loans from the Bank for constructions of the houses. In 1972 or so, they were the recognised producers of the seeds and they produced seeds in their plots which gave them a good yield. They also purchased a tractor which they used to let on hire and thus used to get good rent. According to them, their income from these sources (which were never concealed) was sufficient for purchasing the property. In fact, they do not deny that the property which the investigating machinery found in their possession in 1975 was their property. Their only defence is that the gold and silver were inherited by them from their father and mother, whereas the remaining property was purchased by them and they had sufficient sources to purchase this property. They denied that their assets were disproportionate to the known source of their income. 8. The learned Judge on trial found that the only known source of the income of the accused was their salaries. According to the learned Judge, the income from this known source was hardly Rs. 1,05,000/- whereas the assets acquired by them during the period 1966 to 1975 were worth Rs. 3,58,000/-. Thus the assets were disproportionate to the known source. He, however, held that accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were not connected with this acquisition. He, therefore, acquitted them. According to the Trial Judge, it was only accused No. 1 Purushottam, who was guilty of the offence and accordingly he came to be convicted for the offence under Section 5(1)(e) and came to be sentenced as detailed in the opening paragraph of this judgment. The learned Judge further held that the gold, silver and cash was earned by the accused No. 1 by illegal means. He directed the return of the gold and silver ornaments which were on the person of the wives of the two accused. The learned Judge further held that the gold, silver and cash was earned by the accused No. 1 by illegal means. He directed the return of the gold and silver ornaments which were on the person of the wives of the two accused. He further directed confiscation of 680.400 grams of gold, silver weighing 2 kilograms and Rs. 2,878/-. 9. Feeling aggrieved with this order of conviction and sentence and also of disposal of property (inasmuch as it relates to forfeiture), the original accused No.1 Purushottam filed the present appeal. During the pendency of this appeal, Purushottam expired and his widow Pramodini and son Milind continued this appeal. 10. The controversy in this appeal covers a very narrow compass. As the other three accused are already acquitted and as no appeal has been preferred against their acquittal, we are left only with the conviction of Purushottam Kulkarni. It is an undisputed position that Purushottam Kulkarni was a public servant within the meaning of prevention of corruption Act. He was earning a regular salary. The quantum of his salary has been undisputed. Similarly the assets which were found with him and his family are also undisputed. The Trial Court has given the details of the assets in paragraph 17 of its judgment. Enough to point out at this stage that there was a family unit which consisted of the original appellant Purushottam, his brother Prabhakar and their respective wives Pramodini and Pratibha. They were living under the same shelter and sharing common mess. The mother of Purushottam joined them late in 1965. This family unit acquired about 73 acres of land in between 1966 and 1971. A chart of that acquisition can be found to paragraph 17 of the Judgment of the Trial Court. This is regarding the landed property. The value of the acquired property was Rs. 34,900/-. Apart from this landed property, one plot in Jatharpeth was purchased for Rs. 5,000/- on 24-1-1967. A construction was made on that plot in 1967. The first and second floors were constructed in 1971 or so. According to the prosecution, the building standing on the plot was worth Rs. 95,000/-. Another plot at Umari was purchased on 30-51968 for Rs. 1,250/-. One house at Agar was purchased in the name of Pramodini on 14-31969 for Rs. 1,500/-. One house in Ramdaspeth was purchased for Rs. 15,000/- on 15-9-1970. According to the prosecution, the building standing on the plot was worth Rs. 95,000/-. Another plot at Umari was purchased on 30-51968 for Rs. 1,250/-. One house at Agar was purchased in the name of Pramodini on 14-31969 for Rs. 1,500/-. One house in Ramdaspeth was purchased for Rs. 15,000/- on 15-9-1970. Thus the house property which was acquired (and constructed) in between this period was to the tune of Rs. 1,08,750/-. Buffalos and rickshaws worth Rs. 17,000/- were purchased during this period. A tractor worth Rs. 38,000/- was purchased during this period. Other household articles worth Rs. 33,000/- were found with the family. In addition, it is alleged that gold worth Rs. 50,000/- and silver worth Rs. 4,000/ was also found with the family. 11. It is interesting to note at this stage, as it springs from the testimony of Gokhale (P.W. 39), that an anonymous complaint was received by the A.C.B. sometimes in 1973 stated that the appellant Purushottam had earned tremendous property disproportionate to his known source. A preliminary enquiry was made. Finding that there was some truth in the allegations, an offence was registered and the search of the house of the appellant was taken. During that search the property mentioned above was found. This property was worth Rs. 3,05,650/-. It is not disputed by the parties that Purushottam and Prabhakar were the public servants earning salary income and their salary income till 1973 was as follows: (a) Purushottam's salary Rs. 60,000. (b) Prabhakar's salary Rs. 36,000. (c) Pratibha's salary after marriage. Rs. 5,000. (d) Pratibha's savings prior to her marriage Rs. 2,500. Thus the total salary incomes comes to Rs. 1,03,000/-. The main attack of the prosecution is that the family had the income of Rs. 1,03,000/- and as against this, the assets acquired by the family are worth Rs. 3,05,650/. This, according to the prosecution, is disproportionate to the known source of income. This court will have to consider the evidence in detail as far as this aspect of the case is concerned. 12. There is, however, a dispute regarding the acquisition of gold and silver worth Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 4,000/- respectively. 3,05,650/. This, according to the prosecution, is disproportionate to the known source of income. This court will have to consider the evidence in detail as far as this aspect of the case is concerned. 12. There is, however, a dispute regarding the acquisition of gold and silver worth Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 4,000/- respectively. According to the prosecution, this gold and silver was also acquired during the period 1%6 to 1975 along with other property, whereas the appellant Purushottam insists that this gold and silver belonged to his ancestors and had devalved on him as his ancestral property. There is no evidence on record to show that this gold and silver was acquired by the appellant during the period 1966 to 1975. True, some of the articles (silver) seized by the police to show that they were presented either to Pramodini (wife of Purushottam), Milind, the son of Purushottam and Pramodini's daughter. These are the petty silver utensils which were given as presents either on the birth day or on some other count. As compared with the total silver (4 kilograms) these articles weigh only some few hundred grams. As far as the remaining silver articles are concerned, there is nothing to show that they were acquired On the other hand, the appellant insisted that it was their ancestral property coming from the father to son. 13. To prove this, the appellant has examined himself as D.W. 1. He stated that his father was a Watandar of the village in Jalgaon (Khandesh) district. There is ample evidence on record to show that Awadhut Kulkarni, the father of appellant Purushottam was a Watandar. After he left his village sometimes in the mid forties and came to stay at Jalgaon along with his family, he started two rationing shops. These rationing shops were closed and thereafter he started a small grocery shop and it continued till his death somewhere in 1961. The prosecution has tried to show that Awadhut Kulkarni had a residential house and a small plot of 3 acres of agricultural land which be disposed of and came to Jalgaon. By necessary implication the prosecution wants to show that he had no other property (including the precious metal). However, some of the prosecution witnesses who happened to be the close relations of the deceased- Awadhut have been examined. They are Anant (P.W. 10) and Lambodar (P.W. 11). By necessary implication the prosecution wants to show that he had no other property (including the precious metal). However, some of the prosecution witnesses who happened to be the close relations of the deceased- Awadhut have been examined. They are Anant (P.W. 10) and Lambodar (P.W. 11). Both of them deposed that Awadhut was a Watandar and he had considerable gold and silver with him. Their evidence also shows that Saraswatibai, the wife of Awadhut, had about 60 to 70 tolas of gold with her, when she was at Jalgaon. Both of these witnesses have been declared hostile by the prosecution and the learned Public Prosecutor sought permission from the court to put questions to these witnesses in the nature of cross-examination. Suffice it to point out at this stage that the intention of the prosecution in declaring these witnesses as hostile was that it was for the first time that the witnesses came with the case that Saraswatibai had gold and silver with her. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the testimony of these witnesses that Awadhut had gold and silver with him. Apart from the oral evidence which has been disbelieved by the Trial Court, there are some circumstances which strengthen this conclusion. Finally Awadhut was a Watandar and continued to be so till the watans were abolished. As is well-known, watandar families in those good old days were the families with substantive property. The extent of the property cannot be judged by the fact that he had only 3 acres of land. In old days the real property was the precious metal and the families used to invest their moneys more in the precious metals than in anything else. It appears, from, the record that Awadhut had a limited family of 2 sons and 2 daughters. He was not required to spend much for the education of the children inasmuch as the two sons started earning their livelihood after their matriculation from the year 1953 or so. This is one aspect. 14. Another circumstance that is established on record is that when Awadhut came to stay at Jalgaon he started two rationing shops. Thereafter the rationing shops were closed and he started one small grocery shop in the tenements owned by one Rane. The account books of that shop have been filed on record. This is one aspect. 14. Another circumstance that is established on record is that when Awadhut came to stay at Jalgaon he started two rationing shops. Thereafter the rationing shops were closed and he started one small grocery shop in the tenements owned by one Rane. The account books of that shop have been filed on record. The account-books were available for inspection of the prosecution, but no effort has been made by the prosecution in that behalf. Enough to point out at this stage that entries in those account books, which are admittedly in the hand of Awadhut Kulkarni, show that he used to sell articles worth Rs. 80/- or 85/- on credit to his landlord Rane during a month. This circumstance is sufficient enough to give us some idea about the total outtum of the shop. When he was selling the goods on credit to his landlord far beyond the amount of rent every month, it means that his turnover was substantial. This also falsifies the testimony of Rane, who tried to testify before the court that Awadbut Kulkarni was leading a very humble life and he was hardly earning Rs. 2/- to 4/- per day from the sale of grocery articles in the shop. Rane goes to the length of saying that Awadhut was not in a position even to pay the rent so that he had to institute a suit for eviction (most probably on the ground of arrears of rent). However, the judgment of that suit has on filed before the court and it shows that the suit was not filed on the ground of the tenant being in arrears, but on the ground that the landlord required-the tenements for his bonafide occupation. These circumstances falsify the testimony of Rane. On the other hand, the other evidence shows that the outtum of the grocery shop of Awadhut was quite lucrative and it ranged from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 300/- every day, which gives us a rough idea of the net profits. Calculating the profits at 10 per cent of the total turnover, it can be reasonably said that the daily income of Awadhut from the shop was in between Rs. 25/- to Rs. 50/- every day. This income was in fiftees and we can appreciate the value that a rupee commanded then. This income was definitely a substantial income. Calculating the profits at 10 per cent of the total turnover, it can be reasonably said that the daily income of Awadhut from the shop was in between Rs. 25/- to Rs. 50/- every day. This income was in fiftees and we can appreciate the value that a rupee commanded then. This income was definitely a substantial income. This has also to he looked on a particular background that the family of Awadhut, in the late fifties, consisted of himself, his wife and one daughter. The other daughter was married already and two sons had already left the family and they started earning their own livelihood at Akola in 1955. This circumstance, according to me, gives a rough estimate of the financial status of Awadhut's family in fiftees and it would be reasonable to infer from the circumstances that the family was well-to-do family. 15. If the evidence of the witnesses is considered on this background, it would be difficult to reject the testimony that Saraswatibai had on her person about 60 to 70 tolas of gold and in addition, the family had also silver. This evidence comes from the persons who had occasion to visit the family house of Awadhut Kulkarni. The learned Judge of the Trial Court has criticised the testimony of those persons on the ground that they are the witnesses too much interested in the accused. It is true that some of the witnesses are the close relations of the accused, but it cannot be forgotten at this stage that they are the persons who could have a better idea about the household affairs. A stranger who had no occasion to see the lady-folk could not depose about the status of the family. In any way, the evidence as it stands does not appear to me unnatural, particularly in view of the fact that Awadhut belonged to the old watandar family, and secondly even after the abolition of watans, he had a lucrative business in grocery. 16. It is on this background that we have to consider whether the gold and silver shown by the prosecution as the assets acquired in between 1966 and 1975 was really an asset acquired or whether it was the asset inherited by the appellant Purushottam from his father and mother. 16. It is on this background that we have to consider whether the gold and silver shown by the prosecution as the assets acquired in between 1966 and 1975 was really an asset acquired or whether it was the asset inherited by the appellant Purushottam from his father and mother. Purushottam's evidence did show that after the death of his father, his mother continued the shop for about 2 or 3 years more and thereafter she wound up the shop and came to Akola with gold, silver and cash of Rs. 30,000/-. If the evidence, that the family had gold and silver, is believed, then there is no reason to reject the testimony of Purushottam that his mother joined him at Akola along with the gold weighing about 60 to 70 tolas, silver weighing about 4 kilograms and cash of Rs. 30,000/-. It is true that there is no documentary evidence to establish this. On the other it was urged before the Trial Court (and It appears that the Trial Court was much impressed by this argument) that a commercial family like Kulkarni family, could not have kept the amount at house when there were facilities of banking. As a matter of fact, this reasoning ignores one circumstance that has crept on record. Awadhut died sometimes in 1961 and after his death it was only his widow who had to carry on with this business. Awadhut may be well-versed with commercial and banking activities, but his wife cannot be accredited with the same. She was after all a woman may not be much conversant with banking and she had to wind up the shop and collect the liquid assets only with a view to leave Jalgaon for good and to stay with her sons at Akola. From that point of view, the arguments made before the learned Judge of the Trial Court does not appear rather convincing. 17. Mr. Gohokar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, brought to my notice some of the contradiction in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. According to him, even assuming that the family had 60 to 70 tolas gold, there is evidence on record to show that one of the daughters of Awadhut was married long back in 1958 or so and it was urged that Awadhut must have given some gold to her during her marriage and also some dowry. According to him, even assuming that the family had 60 to 70 tolas gold, there is evidence on record to show that one of the daughters of Awadhut was married long back in 1958 or so and it was urged that Awadhut must have given some gold to her during her marriage and also some dowry. In fact, there is no evidence to the effect However, there evidence to show mat then Purushottam married to Pramodini in 1958, Saraswati gave about 10 tolas of gold to Pramodini in the marriage. It was further urged that Prabhakar was married to Pratibha in 1964 or so and if that marriage 25 tolas of gold was given by Saraswatibai to Pratibha it is urged that Saraswatibai had already parted with 35 tolas of gold in these two marriages and, therefore, she could not come to Akola with gold weighing 60 or 70 tolas (when she had already parted with 35 tolas of gold). This argument is too technical in the way that what was found with the family in 1975 at the time of raid was 60-70 tolas gold. This gold belonged to the whole family and not to a particular individual. Even assuming that Saraswatibai gave 10 tolas of gold to Pramodini and 25 tolas to Pratibha, still the gold remained in the same family mid it did not go out of the family. 18. There is evidence of Purushottam to the effect that in his marrieage with Pramodini in 1958, Pramodini’s brother Digambar (P.W. 25) gave her 25 tolas of gold and Rs. 5,000/- in cash by way of dowry. Digambar Tillo (P.W. 22) deposes that in the marriege of his sister he gave 25 tolas of gold and Rs. 5,000/- in cash by way of dowry. He was declared hostile by the prosecution merely because in his statement before the police he has not disclosed this part of the matter. When the appellant was examined as his witness before the Trial Court, he has stated that Dogambar Tillo had made a statement before the Income-tax Authorities that he had given 25 tolas and Rs. 5,000/- in cash to his sister in the marriage. Thus this is not a case, which is coming for the first time before this Court. It was case made out long before the present I prosecution. 5,000/- in cash to his sister in the marriage. Thus this is not a case, which is coming for the first time before this Court. It was case made out long before the present I prosecution. The cross-examination of the appellant Purusbottam revealed that the prosecution did no want to challenge the making of that statement. What they challenged was that the statement was false. In view of this, the evidence of the appellant that Pramodini came to his fmnily along with 25 to as of gold and a cash (If Rs 5,000/- cannot be brushed aside lightly. 19. It is an adrmtted position that Pratibha (Original accused No 4) was married to Prabhakar, (Original accused No. 3) in 1964. Pratibha prior to her marriage was serving as a Nurse at Chalisgaon and she was earning a sahry. Purusho am has deposed that in her marriage the father of Pratibha gave to her 10 tolas of gold. Pratibha in her examination under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, has also stated that she had brought with her 10 tolas of gold when she came under the shelter of her huskband in 1964. There is nothing to reject this testimony. Pratibha herself was an earning hand. Through there is no evidence throwing any light on financial status of her father, the fact that she herself was an earning hand ill the family, renders credence to the evidence of the appellant Purushottam. 20. There is also evidence on record to show that Pratihha hadmth her, her own savings to the tune of Rs. 2,500/- and she brought those savings with her. After her marriage she was transferred from the Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon to the Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon to the Zilla Parishad, Akola and she was pasted as a Nurse foe sometimne at village Agar where she continued to earn her salary. There a no dispute at this stage that she earn Rs. 5,000/- as her salary during two years following her marriage. This evidence taken broadly makes the existence of the following facts probable: (1) That the family of Awadhut Kulkarni was a Watundar family which could normally have gold and silver, which was then a status symbol. (2) Even after shifting to Jalgaon, Awadhut was financially stable inasmuch as his grocery shop was giving good turn over and a good profit. This evidence taken broadly makes the existence of the following facts probable: (1) That the family of Awadhut Kulkarni was a Watundar family which could normally have gold and silver, which was then a status symbol. (2) Even after shifting to Jalgaon, Awadhut was financially stable inasmuch as his grocery shop was giving good turn over and a good profit. (3) After the death of Awadhut his widow Saraswati wound up tills shop and came to Akola in 1964 along with gold and silver and cash of Rs. 30,000/-. (4) That Saraswatibai had with her about 60-70 tolas of gold when she came to Akola. (5) That Pramodini brought with her about 25 tolas of gold and Rs. 5,000/- cash in her marriage with took place in 1958. (6) That Pratibha brought with her 10 tolas of gold from her paternal house and Rs. 2,500/- as her savings when she came to stay which her husband Prabhakar. (7) Even thereafter Pratibha continued to serve for about two years and has earned a salary of Rs. 5,000/-. 21. These are the reasonable assets of the family prior to the year 1966. To reiterate once again. I am called upon to decide whether the acquisitions made by the appellant from 1966 onwards till 1975 are disproportionate to their known sources. It is interesting to note that this issue was not properly considered in the correct perspective. Though other sources were considered, that consideration has been hazardous and this point will have to be discussed in details in the paragraphs to come. 22. Now we start with the first acquisition of 4 acres of land for Rs. 1,000/-. This land was purchased in the name of Saraswatibai in the year 1966. If the assets of Saraswatibai, as detailed in the foregoing paragraphs, are considered, this acquisition cannot be said to be unnatural. In 1967 a plot Jatharpeth was purchased for Rs. 5,000/-It was in the name of Pramodini. S. No. 184/4 admeasuring 6 acres of Agar and S. No. 125/1 admeasuring 4 acres at village Tawalar were purchased on 16-4-1968 and 23-4-1968 for consideration of Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 6,000/respectively. S. No. 225/1 admeausring 3 acres from Agar was purchased for Rs. 1,500/- on 153-1969. S. No. 215/1 admeasuring 9 acres from the village Agar was purchased for Rs. 5,500/- on 13-5-1969. 3,000/- and Rs. 6,000/respectively. S. No. 225/1 admeausring 3 acres from Agar was purchased for Rs. 1,500/- on 153-1969. S. No. 215/1 admeasuring 9 acres from the village Agar was purchased for Rs. 5,500/- on 13-5-1969. S. No. 274 admeasuring 7 acres was purchased on 7-4-1970 for Rs. 13,500/-. Similarly S. No. 244/18 of Agar admeasuring 2 acres was purchased on 4-6-1970 for Rs. 1,000/-. Before this, a plot of Umari was purchased for Rs. 1,250/- in 1968 and the house of Agar was purchased in 1969 for Rs. 1,500/-. A house situated in Ramdaspeth was purchased in 1970 for Rs. 15,000/-. S. No. 163/2 admeasuring 2 acres from Ugwa was purchased on 7-3-1971 for Rs. 2,500/-. 18 acres of land out of S. No. 16312 of Ugwa was purchased for Rs. 8,500/- on 6-5-1971 and 9 acres of land from the same field was purchased for Rs. 10,000/- on 5-6-1971. Finally survey No. 17/4 admeasuring 9 acres at Lakhanwada was purchased on 5-6-1971 for Rs. 13,000/-. It is also the prosecution case that on the plot in Jatharpeth purchased in 1967, the ground floor was constructed in the same year and Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- were spent on that construction. In 1971 the first and second floors were raised on that structure and the money spent thereon was to the tune of Rs. 65,000/- or so. It is further an admitted position that buffalos worth Rs. 14,000/-, rickshaws worth Rs. 3,000/-, household utensils worth Rs. 33,000/- and a tractor worth Rs. 38,000/- were found with the family prior to 1975. The value of these assets (excluding gold and silver) thus comes to Rs. 2,71,200/-. There appears to be some mistake in the schedule of property shown in para 7 of the judgment of the appellant at the stage of appeal. I am, however, taking the figures as given by the appellant. They are higher than that shown by the prosecution. 23. The crucial point that has been urged before me is - whether these assets are disproportionate to the known source of income. It is true that as held in State of Maharashtra v. Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar1. "Known source" means "source known to the prosecution". They are higher than that shown by the prosecution. 23. The crucial point that has been urged before me is - whether these assets are disproportionate to the known source of income. It is true that as held in State of Maharashtra v. Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar1. "Known source" means "source known to the prosecution". Though it was urged at one stage that the source known to the prosecution was only the salary, it was conceded that there were other sources of income for the family and the other sources were (1) agriculture, (2) rent from houses, (3) rent from the rickshaws which were being plied on hire, and (4) the income from milk business. These sources were also known to the prosecution and the investigating officer, during the 'course of investigation has taken these sources also into consideration. There was a debate regarding the quantum received from agriculture. It is true that admittedly till 1972 the method of agriculture pursued by the family was conventional. However, from 1972 onwards seed plots were sanctioned and seeds were produced and sold. These seeds included hybrid juar, hybrid bajra, cotton including Var Laxmi and so on and so forth. According to the appellant, the net income from agriculture was at least Rs. 500/per acre net per year, whereas according to the prosecution, it was as a bit exaggerated estimate and the net profits could not exceed Rs. 200/- to Rs. 300/- per acre per year. Without going into these disputes regarding the quantum, and even relying upon the quantum as suggested by the prosecution i.e. Rs. 300/- per acre per year, we have to estimate the income from these assets- till the 1975 because these assets were found with die appellant's family in 1975 and for comparison the income of the family till 1975 will have to be taken into consideration. 24. It will be a fallacious approach to consider the income of the family only upto the year 1973 when the last agricultural land was purchased. From this point of view, S. No. 24 was with this family right since 1966. It admeasures 4 acres. At the rate of Rs. 300/- per acre, the income of 9 years could be Rs. 10,800/-. S. No. 184 was with the family from 16-4-1968 i.e. for 7 years. The net income would be Rs. 12,600/-. S. No. 125 was with the family for 7 years. It admeasures 4 acres. At the rate of Rs. 300/- per acre, the income of 9 years could be Rs. 10,800/-. S. No. 184 was with the family from 16-4-1968 i.e. for 7 years. The net income would be Rs. 12,600/-. S. No. 125 was with the family for 7 years. The income would be Rs. 10,800/-. S. No. 225/1 was with the family for 6 years. It will admeasuring 3 acres. The income would be Is. 5,400/. S. No. 215/1, admeasuring 9 acres, was with the family for 6 years. The income would be Rs. 16,200/-. S. No. 274 of Ugwa was admeasuring 7 acres. It was with the family for 5 years. The income would be Rs. 10,500/-. S. No. 244/18 admeasuring 2 acres was with the family for 5 years. The income would be Rs. 3,000/-. S. No. 163/2 admeasuring 21 acres has been purchased by three sale deeds dated 2-5-1971, 56-1971 and 5-6-1971. The net income for four years would be Rs. 25,200/-. The last field S. No. 17/4, admeasuring 9 acres was purchased on 5-6-1971 for Rs. 1,300/-. The net income for 4 years would be as. 10,800/-. Thus taking the net income 01 Rs. 300/- per acre per year, the net income from the field property upto the year 1975 would be Rs. 1,05,300/-. Regarding the house rent, it is an admitted position that the ground floor on the Jatbarpeth plot was constructed in 1967 and it was let out at the monthly rent of Rs. 375/-. Thus the rent of the ground floor itself would be Rs. 36,000/- for 8 years. The house at Ramdaspeth was purchased on 15-9-1970 for Rs. 15,000/-. Mr. Gohokar says that there were three blocks in this house and each block earned rent of Rs. 75/- per month. The total income of rent from this house would be Rs. 13,500/-. In addition the milk business or rickshaw business even according to the prosecution in all these years could fetch Rs. 10,000/-. In addition to it admittedly a bank loan of Rs. 20,000/- was taken by the appellant's family on 11-2-1972 and another bank loan of Rs. 15,000/- was taken on 17-1-1973. Thus these sources could fetch Rs. 1,99,800/-. 25. The prosecution has not taken into consideration the change in the agricultural pattern effected by the appellant's family in 1972. 10,000/-. In addition to it admittedly a bank loan of Rs. 20,000/- was taken by the appellant's family on 11-2-1972 and another bank loan of Rs. 15,000/- was taken on 17-1-1973. Thus these sources could fetch Rs. 1,99,800/-. 25. The prosecution has not taken into consideration the change in the agricultural pattern effected by the appellant's family in 1972. Some seed plots were developed by the appellant's family and the seeds of Bajra, Juar and cotton were grown on these plots and they fetched the extra income in addition to the ordinary agricultural income. We have from the evidence of Purushottam (D.W. 1) that the income from the seeds in the year 1972 was Rs. 38,252/-, in 1973 it was Rs. 24,000/- and in 1974 it was Rs. 32,000/-. Deducting from it Rs. 50,000/- as expenses, the income would be Rs. 43,000/-. This would not in fact affect the average income from agriculture, because seed farms occupied a very negligible area. 26. Admittedly the appellant's family had purchased a tractor in the year 1973. It is also in the testimony of the appellant (D.W. 1) that this tractor was let out on hire to different agriculturists. The income from the Tractor as is evident from the testimony of D.W. 1 was Rs. 73,500/-. 27. There is evidence on record to show that in 1970 Pramodini and Pratibha obtained loan of Rs. 20,000/- from Pagrut (D.W. 6). Pagrut has entered into the witness box and says on oath that he had advanced this loan to these ladies. The Kulkarni family was known to him. He also says that this loan was repaid by 31-1-1977: The advance of this loan has been very much disputed on behalf the prosecution. We may ignore this circumstance, but even ignoring this circumstance, what has been established, as far as the source of income of the appellant is concerned, is as follows: (a) Agriculture land 1,05,300 (b) Jatharpeth house 36,000 (c) Ramdaspeth House 13,500 (d) Milk and Rickshaw business 10,000 (e) Loan from the bank on 11-2-1972 20,000 (f) Netincome from the seed fanus in 1972, 1973 and 1974: 45,000 (g) Income from the Tractor after 1973 to 1975. 73,500 Thus the total income from these sources comes to Rs. 3,18,300. This now gives the rough idea of the sources of income of the family. 73,500 Thus the total income from these sources comes to Rs. 3,18,300. This now gives the rough idea of the sources of income of the family. It is not the case of the prosecution that these sources were not at all available, to the appellant's family. They admit that these sources were there and the appellant's family was earning income from these sources. I have' calculated this income on the basis of the admitted positions. I have accepted the prosecution case that the net annual income from the landed property would be Rs. 300/- per acre and not more. There is no evidence on record to show that during these 9 or 10 years, there was bad year as far as agriculture is concerned jobs these different sources clearly show that during this period the income of the family was to tune of Rs. 3,18,390/-. This is apart from the salary income of the appellant Purushottam and his brother Prabhakat. This is also apart from the evidence of the appellant which shows that his mother came to Mola With a cash Rs. 30,000/- with lier. This is also apart from the salary earned by Pratibha while at Akola and Rs. 2,500/- brought by her in cash. The learned counsel for the appellants has, filed 9, list of assets acquired (with the value) and income from different sources. The prosecution. I did not dispute this valuation. They have also given the amount spent towards the acquisition of these assets: On the next page they have given the value of earnings from different sources. Only three items of Rs. 46,500/- (from, milk business), Rs. 20,000/- (Hard cash) and Rs. 5,000/(marriage gift to Pramodini) are denied -There is nothing to justify the denial of the, last, item. There is no rebutting evidence. This according to this statement the income from the sources tally with the assets, particularly when the fact that Saraswatibai brought with her Rs. 30,000/- after winding the shop is considered. 28. It is on the background of this balance sheet that the court is now called upon to decide whether the assets acquired are disproportionate to the known so of income. I have already adverted to the ratio laid down in State of Maharashtra v. Wasudeo Ramchndra Kaidalwar (A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1186). 30,000/- after winding the shop is considered. 28. It is on the background of this balance sheet that the court is now called upon to decide whether the assets acquired are disproportionate to the known so of income. I have already adverted to the ratio laid down in State of Maharashtra v. Wasudeo Ramchndra Kaidalwar (A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1186). The Supreme Court has laid down that for establishing a case under Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution has to establish four things, namely, (1) that the accused is a public servant, (2) the nature and extent of the pecuniary resources or property which was found in his possession, (3) it must be proved as to what were his known sources of income i.e. known to the prosecution, - and (4) it must prove, quite objectively, that such resources or property found in possession of' the accused were disproportionate to his own source of income. As far as 'the status of the appellant as a public servant is concerned, it has been established beyond any reasonable doubt and there is no challenge to that finding. The known sources of income are also located and the outcome from these sources was Rs. 3,18,300/-. The assets acquired on the other hand are worth Rs. 2,51,650/-, excluding the gold and silver. This court has now to find out whether the earning of the assets worth Rs. 2,51,650/- can be called as proportionate to the income which is Rs. 3,18,300/-. By no stretch of imagination can it be called that it is disproportionate. 29. The learned Judge of the Trial Court had a very technical approach to the problem, which is not an all justified in the circumstances of the case. To repeat it once again, when the prosecution comes with the case that during the period of 8 6r 10 years so much property has been acquired against so much income from the known sources, the court has to proceed broadly as to what was the quantum of income during this period and what has, even acquired as against that during this period. The Trial\Court, however, took each period separately. For, example, while considering the acquisition of, S. No. 34/4 of Agar for Rs. 2,400/- in 1968, the court found that on that particular day, the appellant's family was not possessing this much amount. The Trial\Court, however, took each period separately. For, example, while considering the acquisition of, S. No. 34/4 of Agar for Rs. 2,400/- in 1968, the court found that on that particular day, the appellant's family was not possessing this much amount. The plot at Jatharpeth was purchased in January 1967 and the construction thereon was made by the end of 1967. What the court found that during this year the appellant had no hard cash of Rs. 30,000/- or Rs. 40,000/- which was invested in that year. This approach, according to me, is neither correct nor proper. The proper approach should be to have the outlook of the total sources of income spread over for particular time and then compare the acquisitions made during that period as a whole. Looked at from this point of view, the approach of the Trial Court was not correct. During the court of arguments. it was not disputed before me that particularly from 1972, the family became affluent and its income also increased substantially. This may be due to the seed production, which fetched a very high return as compared to ordinary agriculture. But we are not much concerned with that. What we are concerned with at this stage is the total earning of the family as such in between 1966 and 1973 and the total acquisition by the family during this period. If the total acquisitions are objectively compared with the total earnings during that period, it cannot be said that the total assets are disproportionate to the income. This has to be scrutinised even on the background of the other circumstances. The family consisted of the old mother, two young couples and 3 or 4 small children of theirs. The children were hardly school-going in that particular period. There is nothing to show that the living was lavish or tilting towards extravagance. Thus the expenses of the family were very much limited. Their ration was assured from their own agriculture. They had their own house to reside. These circumstances show that the family was not required to spend much for the day to day livelihood. The acquisition has to be scrutinised on this background. 3. Even otherwise, the prosecution has not been able to bring any clinching circumstances against the appellant. Their ration was assured from their own agriculture. They had their own house to reside. These circumstances show that the family was not required to spend much for the day to day livelihood. The acquisition has to be scrutinised on this background. 3. Even otherwise, the prosecution has not been able to bring any clinching circumstances against the appellant. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant was in a position finally to influence others so that he could earn something by his act., He was merely an Agricultural Assistant whose duty was merely to advise as to what particular type of seeds and crops should be cultivated in a particular land depending upon the nature and character of the soil. Till 1972 he had no seeds of his own he could sell in the market. Thus the question or influence does not arise at all. The prosecution has not brought anything on record to show that right since 1966 to 1972 there was even a whisper in the air accusing the appellant. Of any mal-practice or wrong act, or corruption. 31. Taking into consideration the whole evidence, as discussed above, I find myself unable to accept the findings of the Trial Court that the assets earned by the appellant were disproportionate to the known source of income. As the record stands, it appears that the family of the accused and particularly these two ladies embibed certain new concepts in agriculture and this led to the increase in the assets slowly but steadily. They purchased few acres of land in 1966 and 1968, purchased some buffalow, and developed the dairy business. Then they purchased a plot in 1967 and constructed a house in 1967. The assets themselves multiplied. More land was purchased. More advanced technique was adopted. For this the aid of the bank was also taken. It is this pinned graph that we can see in the present case. 32. In the result, the finding recorded by the Trial Court that the assets earned by the appellant were, disproportionate to their known sources of income is bad and it cannot be sustained with the result that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant Purushottam Awadhut Kulkarni is hereby quashed. 32. In the result, the finding recorded by the Trial Court that the assets earned by the appellant were, disproportionate to their known sources of income is bad and it cannot be sustained with the result that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant Purushottam Awadhut Kulkarni is hereby quashed. As consequence of quashing of this order, the order directing the confiscation of 680.400 grams of gold being forfeited to the State and the further order of 2 kilograms silver being forfeited to the State is also quashed and set aside. "Similarly the order directing forfeiture of Rs. 2,878/- to the State is also quashed. The gold ornaments - weighting 680.400 grams, silver weighing 2.341 kilograms and the cash of Rs. 2,878/- shall be returned to the legal representatives of the original accused appellant Pramodini wife of Purushottam and Milind son of Purushottam. 33. In the result, the appeal thus succeeds. The order of conviction and sentence against appellant Purushottam (since deceased) is quashed. The order of forfeiture of 680.400 grants of gold ornaments, 2.341 kilograms silver and the cash of Rs. 2,878/- is hereby set aside and these gold and silver ornaments and cash are directed to be returned to the legal representatives of the deceased appellant. Appeal allowed. 1. (A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1186).