V. B. BANSAL ( 1 ) RAGHUNANDAN Gupta was convicted Under Section 5 ( 1 ) (e) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the act ) by Special Judge, Delhi on 18. 1. 1982. After giving an opportunity of being heard about the sentence he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs. l5. 000. 00 with a further direction that in case of default in the payment of fine he would suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year. Being aggrieved from his conviction and sentence he has filed this appeal with the prayer that his conviction and sentence may be set aside and he may be acquitted. ( 2 ) DY. S. P. P. D. Ajmera of C. B. I. , Jaipur filed a challan at Jaipur against the appellant in RC No. 17 dated 26. 6. 1975 recorded on the statement of Lal Singh, resident of Village Berawal, P. O. Berawal, Jawaibandh. ( 3 ) BRIEFLY stated, the averments made in the chargesheet against the appellant are as under: ( 4 ) SHRI R. N. Gupta, appellant, was appointed as Inspector, Central Excise in 1943 and was promoted as Deputy Superintendent, Central Excise in November-December, 1949. He was thereafter promoted as Superintendent Central Excise in the first week of April 1959 and in that capacity he remained posted at various places, viz. Ghaziabad, Faizabad, Madansour, Ghazipur, Chandigarh, Gurgaon, Jaipur and Delhi. He was compulsorily retired on 30. 9. 1975. House search was conducted on 30. 6. 1975 and the matter was investigated in detail with regard to the assets, moveable as well as immoveables and also about the income and expenditure. The following assets valued at Rs. 4,66,419. 49 were found in his possession as on 30. 9. 1975, the date on which he compulsorily retired : ( 5 ) THE income of the appellant, the remittance received from his daughter, Smt. Krishnavanti Gupta, residing in U. K. ; from his son Suresh Kumar and father Shiv Dayal Gupta, etc. was assessed as under: ( 6 ) THE expenditure incurred by the appellant over the family during the period 1. 5. 59 to 30. 9. was assessed as under: ( 6 ) THE expenditure incurred by the appellant over the family during the period 1. 5. 59 to 30. 9. 75 was assessed as under:- ( 7 ) IN this way the investigation revealed that the appellant was found in possession of assets disproportionate to his knownsources of income to the extent of Rs. 1,79. 608. 32p. and, thus, it was concluded that this was the amount received by him by corrupt and illegal means. ( 8 ) ON a transfer petition, viz. Crl. No. 3/78 filed by R. N. Gupta in the Supreme Court this case was transferred to the file of the Special Judge, Delhi, vide orde dated 7. 8. 1978 by the Supreme Court of India. ( 9 ) CHARGE was framed against the appellant on 9. 11. 1978 for having committed an offence punishable under Section 5 ( 1 ) (e) read with Section 5 (2) of the Act for having been found in possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 1,79. 6 08. 32 to which he pleaded non-guilty and claimed trial. ( 10 ) IN support of its case the prosecution examined 63 witnesses. R. N. gupta examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied the allegations against him with regard to having obtained assets disproportionate to his known sources of income by corrupt or illegal means and pleaded that he was not found in possession of any disproportionate wealth. He himself appeared in the witness box as DW/11 and examined 10 witneses in his defence. The learned trial court after hearing arguments convicted and sentenced him as referred to above. ( 11 ) I have heard Shri D. C. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant and Shri S. Lal, learned counsel for the respondents. I have also carefully gone through the record. ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned trial court has committed grave error in recording the findings with regard to the disproportionate assets alleged to have been found in possession of Raghunandan Gupta in spite of the fact that there was sufficient evidence to show that he was not in possession of any such disproportionate assets. According to the findings of the learned trial court, Raghunandan Gupta was found in possession of the disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 73,245. 50. According to the findings of the learned trial court, Raghunandan Gupta was found in possession of the disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 73,245. 50. For the purposes of this appeal, it would be sufficient, if I examine the correctness of the findings of the trial court as regards the value of the aforesaid disproportionate assets. I would, now, be taking up the individual items, which according to the learned counsel for the appeallant have been disallowed by the learned trial court, for no cogent reason. ( 13 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned trial court has gravely erred in recording a finding with regard to the appellant having spent a sum of Rs. 6,500. 00 on foreign trip for going to London along with his wife in order to meet his daughter. This aspect of the case has been discussed by the learned trial court in para 87 of its judgment. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there has not been any cogent or reliable evidence and the finding of the learned trial court on this point is based only on surmises and conjectures. According to the prosecution story, the Investigating Officer came to know during Investigation from the Department of the accuse ns also from the pass-port authorities that Raghunandan Gupta had gone to U. K. He has, however, not referred to any evidence, which could be admissible in law so that the same could be scrutinized. There is no doubt that Shri M. G. Mathur, Assistant Pasport Officer, Public Witness- 13 has stated that passport was issued to Shri Raghunandan Gupta to enable him to pago to U. K. to meet his daughter but he did not know if Raghunandan Gupta had actually gone there or not. There is no doubt that Suresh Kumar, DW-7 has stated that he did not know if his parents had gone to England or not, but this statement, to my mind, can hardly be considered sufficient to hold that the appellant did go to England. There is a clear statement by Raghunandan Gupta on oath as DW-11 that he had not gone to England. Learned trial court was not correct in coming to the conclusion that no reliance should be placed on the testimony of the appellant since this fact was not deposed by him in his examination-in-chief. There is a clear statement by Raghunandan Gupta on oath as DW-11 that he had not gone to England. Learned trial court was not correct in coming to the conclusion that no reliance should be placed on the testimony of the appellant since this fact was not deposed by him in his examination-in-chief. The law is well settled that the statement made during cross-examination has to be read with the examination-in-chief and no presumption can be drawnagainst a person for having disclosed certain facts only in the cross-examination and not in the examination- in-chief. It is, thus, clear that there is a positive statement by the accused/appellant with regard to his having not gone to England and no other evidence from the side of prosecution. Thus, I hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove that Raghunandan Gupta had gone to England or that he had spent a sum of Rs. 6,500. 00 on such a trip. Credit for this amount, in these circumstances ought to have been given to the appellant. ( 14 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has submitted that fridge worth Rs. 3,300. 00 found in the house of the appelland, did not belong to the appellant and in fact it was given to his son Suresh Kumar in his marriage in 1970 and wrongly, the learned trial court has included the value of this fridge in the assets owned by the appellant. He has, thus, submitted that credit for Rs. 3,300. 00 should be given to the appellant. This matter has been discussed by the learned trial court in para 46 of the judgment. There is no doubt that this fridge was found in the drawing room and Suresh Kumar was occupying a separate room in the house, in which, the appellant was also residing. The learned trial court came to the conclusion that this fridge belonged to the appellant since it was lying-in the drawing room and had it been owned by Suresh Kumar, it would have been found in his bed room. I am afraid, this can not be said to be a sound reasoning. Fridge is such an item, which would normally be kept by the family in the drawing room or in the dining room. I am afraid, this can not be said to be a sound reasoning. Fridge is such an item, which would normally be kept by the family in the drawing room or in the dining room. It is rare that it would be kept in the bed room and one of the grounds for keeping it in the bed room would be non-availability of sufficient place at any other place. There is a clear statement of Suresh Kumar, DW-7 that the fridge was given to him in marriage in the year 1970 and I do not find any reason to disbelieve him in this claim. Learned trial court, in my view, has committed an error in disbelieving the claim of the appellant that the fridge belonged to his son. Thus, credit for the sum of Rs. 3,300. 00 should be given to the appellant. ( 15 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has submitted that Raghunandan Gupta was compulsorily retired from service on 30. 9. 1975 when he was paid a sum of Rs. 1,369. 00 as pay for the month of September 1975 and a sum of Rs. 4,794. 00 as salary for three months on that very day. He has, thus, submitted that the appellant was entitled to be given a credit for this amount, which ought to have been added in his assets, but the learned trial court has wrongly refused to take this amount in the assets. Learned trial court has discussed this point in para 53 of the judgment. Shri C. L. Virmani, Public Witness-38 was working as Section Officer in the Office of the Director of Audit (Central Revenue) and has clearly stated that a sum of Rs. 4,794. 00 was paid to Raghunandan Gupta as 3 monthss pay in advance on the basis of the emoluments drawn in August, 1975, which was not shown in the statement of account EX. Public Witness- 38/c. He has also stated that another sum of Rs. 1,369. 00 was paid to Raghunandan Gupta vide Voucher No. 847 of September. 1975 being the salary for the month of September, 1975. There is no doubt that this amount of Rs. 4,794. 00 is stated to have been deposited in the account of the appellant on 3. 10. 1975. 1,369. 00 was paid to Raghunandan Gupta vide Voucher No. 847 of September. 1975 being the salary for the month of September, 1975. There is no doubt that this amount of Rs. 4,794. 00 is stated to have been deposited in the account of the appellant on 3. 10. 1975. However, to my mind, this late deposit could hardly be a ground to refuse to include this total amount in the assets of the appellant. There is no requirement that this amount ought to have been deposited by the appellant immediately in his bank account after it was received. It is permissible for an individual to keep the amount in his hand or in bank account and it could be utilised by him, in any manner he likes. The learned trial court, in my view, has committed grave error in not including this total amount of Rs. 6,163. 00 and it has to be included in the assets of the appellant. ( 16 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned trial court has gravely erred in coming to the conclusion that wrist watch worth Rs. 1,000. 00 and cash of Rs. 1,000. 00, found in the locker bearing No. 2260 of Shiv Dayal, in the Punjab National Bank, Chandani Chowk branch, Delhi, belonged to the appellant. He submitted that this belonged to Lala Shiv Dayal and ought not to have been included in the assets of the appellant. This aspect has been discussed by the learned trial court in para 91 of the judgment. All that has been stated by the learned trial court in the aforesaid para, is that since these were found in the locker of Shiv Dayal it should be included in the assets of the accused and there is an observation that the cheque period being very long spread over for 16 years, many items of assets and expenses must have gone unnoticed. I have perused the memo Ex. Public Witness-18 / F regarding the opening of the aforesaid locker of Lala Shiv Dayal, which he had jointly opened with Smt. Gaindi Devi and Raghunandan Gupta. It is apparent from this report that key of the locker was made available by Smt. Gaindi Devi and there is no material on record to hold that these two items belonged to Raghunandan Gupta. It is apparent from this report that key of the locker was made available by Smt. Gaindi Devi and there is no material on record to hold that these two items belonged to Raghunandan Gupta. The law is well settled that prosecution has to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt and if there is any doubt, its benefit has to go to the accused and not to the prosecution. In the absence of any material on record, there can not be any correct finding that Rs. 1,000. 00 in cash and wrist watch worth Rs. 1,000. 00 belonged to Raghunandan Gupta, appellant. It has, thus, wrongly been Included in the assets of the appellant. ( 17 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the appellant had claimed a benefit of Rs. 12,900. 00 for maintaining a car and a scooter but actually had spent a sum of Rs. 6,000. 00 only, and in this way, he ought to have been given a credit for Rs. 6,900. 00. In his income tax returns for the year 1973-74, the appellant had claimed a rebate of Rs. 2,275. 00 on travelling at the rate of Rs. 75. 00 per month for maintenance of a motor cycle and Rs. 200. 00 per month on maintenance of his motor car for official use. Learned trial court has observed that beside the use of the vehicle for official purposes, the car was being used by the appellant and his family members for their personal purposes for which he must have spent extra amount, but concluded that he must have spent Rs. 12,900. 00 for all this period, which was claimed by him as a rebate in the income tax. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was not spending the whole amount, which he claimed as a rebate in the income tax and that all the expenses for the maintenances of the car also were being made from the savings. The saw is well settled that travelling allowance drawn by an officer is not an income and after meeting the tax dues, repair charges and expenses on petrol, the balance amount is calculated towards the capital invested. The saw is well settled that travelling allowance drawn by an officer is not an income and after meeting the tax dues, repair charges and expenses on petrol, the balance amount is calculated towards the capital invested. It is a common experience that majority of the officers do purchase vehicles on loan from the government and repay monthly instalments from savings made for TA and on transfer to a job having no outing, they dispose it of. There was no positive evidence on record to show that the appellant was staying in expensive hotels or was using the vehicle very expensively for his own purpose and for the travelling of his family members. A person would normally have savings meant to cover the part of the initial investment over conveyance. In these circumstances, there is nothing unusual in the claim of the appellant that though he had claimed a rebate of Rs. 12,900. 00 from the income tax, he had spent a sum of Rs. 6,000. 00 only and thus, a credit for Rs. 6,900. 00 ought to have been given to the appellant. ( 18 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has submitted that that Raj Kumar, son of the appellant had spent a sum of Rs. 9,000. 00 for the purchase of the land, which has wrongly been disallowed by the learned trial court, holding that it was a benami transaction and the aforesaid land was purchased by the appellant in the name of his son. He has thus submitted that the sum of Rs. 9,000. 00 ought to have been deducted from the assets of the appellant. The law is well settled that prosecution has to prove that any property was held by the accused benami in the name of another person and this burden of proof does not shift. In case Krishnanand Agnihotri versus State of M. P. ( AIR 1977 SC 796 ) following observation have been made :- "it is well settled that the burden of showing that a particular transaction is benami and the owner is not the real owner always rests on the person asserting it to be so and this burden has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidence of a definite character which would either directly prove the fact of benami or establish circumstances unerringty and reasonably raising an inference of that fact. The essence of benami is the intention of the parties and not unoften, such intention is shrouded in athick veil which cannot be easily pierced through. But such difficulties do not relieve the person asserting the transaction to be benami of the serious onus that rests on him nor justify the acceptance of mere conjectures or surmises as a substitute for proof. " ( 19 ) IT is, thus, clear that it is not enough for the prosecution merely to create suspicion because it can not decide on the possibility of suspecion and it has to act on real grounds established by evidence. Marely because it is difficult to prove the benami transaction, would not be ground to give any concession to the State. ex. Public Witness2 /a is sale deed dated 8. 5. 1972 by Nain Mal for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- in respect of 40 big has; Ex. Public Witness7/a is sale deed dated 20. 7. 1992 by Kuldeep Singh in respect of 8 bighas for Rs. 1,300. 00 in favour of Raj Kumar while Ex. Public Witness6/ A is the sale deed dated 16. 5. 1972 for Rs. 2775. 00 by Chunni Lal in favour of Raj Kumar in respect of 18 and half bighas. There is a clear statement made by the appellant in his testimony as DW-1 1 that the amount on these sale deeds was spent by Raj Kumar from his own pocket and it was not purchased by him benami. ( 20 ) RAJ Kamar, has appeared as DW4 and claimed that the aforesaid land was purchased by him from his own savings. He has claimed that he used to earn by taking tuitions, just after taking his higher secondary and wanted to be self-sufficient and on that account, he had started the work of coaching. There is no doubt that he was not able to give the names and particulars of the persons, who were taught by him and he had not produced the account maintained by him. The question, however, for consideration is that could he be disbelieved in his claim of having purchased the land from his own savings. A perusal of his statement makes it abundantly clear that he has a brilliant career. He has passed B. Sc. LL. B. and he was selected as Inspector, Central Excise and Customs and thereafter, was selected as an IPS officer. A perusal of his statement makes it abundantly clear that he has a brilliant career. He has passed B. Sc. LL. B. and he was selected as Inspector, Central Excise and Customs and thereafter, was selected as an IPS officer. By his hard work, he was selected in IAS and is now posted as an officer in Haryana. The aforesaid details makes it clear that Raj Kumar has been an intelligent person from the beginning and the observation of learned trial court that there was no record to show that Raj Kumar was a brilliant Student, cannot be accepted. There is nothing unusual in a brilliant student making efforts to have his own earnings in order to own cash and property and then to rise in life and this is what has happened in the case of Raj Kumar, Just because he has not produced the account, maintained by him, can not be a ground to disbelieve him especially when he was not asked during cross-examination to produce the same on the next date of hearing. Had this witness refused to produce the record after having made a statement about availability of the same at his place, an adverse inference could be drawn against him but no such attempt was made by the prosecution to get the same produced. Keeping in view all these facts, I am clearly of the view that it cannot be said that these three sale deeds were benami or that real owner is Raghunandan Gupta. It Is the prosecution, which claimed that this property was owned by Raghunandan Gupta and not Raj Kumar and thus, the burden was on the prosecution to prove the same. There is a presumption about the correctness of the facts stated in the sale deed and I donot find any cogent reason to disbelieve the testimony of Raj Kumar corroborated by accused/appellant. I, thus, hold that a credit for Rs. 9,000. 00 ought to have been given to the appellant, which has wrongly been denied by the trial court. ( 21 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned trial court has gravely erred in concluding that appellant had spent a sum of Rs. 35,000. 00 on the marriage of his daughter Uma and son Suresh Kumar during the check period. ( 21 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned trial court has gravely erred in concluding that appellant had spent a sum of Rs. 35,000. 00 on the marriage of his daughter Uma and son Suresh Kumar during the check period. He has also submitted that in fact no amount was spent by the appellant in the marriage of son and nominal amount was spent in the marriage of Uma, which was about Rs. 4000. 00 since ornaments and other articles were made available from the house. Learned counsel for the respondent has, on the other hand, submitted that the learned trial court has given cogent reasons for coming to the conclusion about the appellant having spent a sum of Rs. 35,000. 00 in para 80 of the judgment and that there is no reason to upset the aforesaid finding. He has also submitted that accused, in fact, has suppressed the material evidence and there was possibility of the appellant having solemnised the marriage of his another daughter Pushpa also during the aforesaid period, but its benefit has already been given to the appellant by the trial court. A perusal of the evidence and the judgment makes it clear that Raghunandan Gupta has not been able to give definite dates of marriage of his children. Can an adverse inference be drawn against the appellant on account of his inability to give the dates of marriage? The possibility of the appellant having genuinely not been able to recollect the dates can not be ruled out especially when he was facing the agony of trial for being in possession of disproportionate property and having already been compulsorily retired from service. A perusal of para 85 of the impugned judgment shows that from May 1959 to April, 1964, the appellant was drawing an average net salary of Rs. 400. 00 per month and an average net salary of Rs. 600. 00 per month from May, 1964 to April, 1970, while from May, 1972 to September, 1975, he was earning net average salary of about Rs. 1. 000. 00 per month. According to the appellant, marriage of Uma was solemnised somewhere in 1964 and of Suresh in 1970. Keeping in view the aforesaid earnings of the appellant, can it be said that the appellant must have spent Rs. 35. 000. 00 on these two marriages ? 1. 000. 00 per month. According to the appellant, marriage of Uma was solemnised somewhere in 1964 and of Suresh in 1970. Keeping in view the aforesaid earnings of the appellant, can it be said that the appellant must have spent Rs. 35. 000. 00 on these two marriages ? am afraid, there is no cogent material on record to hold that such an amount was spent. It is a conclusion based on estimation only, for which, there is no sufficient supporting material. There is no doubt that every body incurs expenses on marriages as per his status, but to hold that the appellant must have spent Rs. 35,000. 00, in my view, is much more on the higher side. Though, the claim of the appellant that he had spent Rs. 4000. 00 only on the marriage of the daughter and no amount on the marriage of son, can not be believed. Keepinv in view the totality of circumstances and the family status of the appellant, the expenses on these two marriages, in my view, could be held to be not more than Rs. 20,000. 00 in any case. In this way, the appellant is entitled to credit of at least Rs. 15,000. 00. ( 22 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned trial court has rejected the claim of appellant for a sum of Rs. 2,935. 00 spent by him on the registration charges of sale deed in favour of his father in respect of residential plot No. M-133, Greater Kailash, New Delhi. This aspect has been discussed by learned trial court in para 42, 43 and 44 of the judgment. The CBI had conceded that a sum of Rs. 41,636. 00 was spent by Shiv Daval for purchase of this plot through Raghunandan Gupta, appellant. It is also clear from the statement of Bhagwan Singh Sharm Public Witness1 that bid for this plot was given by Raghunandan Gupta for and on behalf of his father Lala Shiv Dayal and the sale deed was also executed in favour of Lala Shiv Dayal. In these circumstances, can it be said that the principal amount was spent by Shiv Dayal, but the registration expenses were not spent by him and my answer would certainly be in the negative. In these circumstances, can it be said that the principal amount was spent by Shiv Dayal, but the registration expenses were not spent by him and my answer would certainly be in the negative. N. C. Sharma, Public Witness35 has admitted that the return for the year 1975-76 was accepted and records account books were not produced before the Income Tax Authorities. Suresh Kumar, DW7 has made a categorical statement that the total amount on the purchase of this plot was spent by Lala Shiv Dayal, his grand-father, who is an Income Tax Assessee. In these circumstances, there can hardly be any justification to disallow the claim of Rs. 2,935. 00 of the appellant, which was spent on the registration of the sale deed in favour of his father Lala Shiv Dayal. This credit thus has to be given to the appellant, which has wrongly been declined by the learned trial court. ( 23 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has submitted that Raj Kumar, son of the appellant has been making payment to his father out of his earnings, for which no credit has been given by the learned trial court and that the appellant is entitled to get the credit for the same. As already referred to. Raj Kumar, DW4 is an IAS officer, thus, having a status in life and has made a categorical statement that he joined service as Inspector of the customs and Central Excise in July, 1972 and during his posting uptil June, 1974, he was getting Rs. 600. 00 per month and was staying with his father during this period. He has also stated that he was paying Rs. 400. 00 per month to his father out of these earnings, since he had no boarding and lodging expenses of his own. There is nothing in the cross-examination so as to disbelieve him. The contribution by him in this way comes to Rs. 9,600. 00 Raj Kumar has also stated that he joined as IPS Officer in July, 1974 and till his marriage in December, 1977, he was paying Rs. 600. 00 per month to his father. There is again nothing to disbelieve him in this regard and the contribution at this rate from August, 1974 till August, 1975 would come to Rs. 7200. 00. In this way, Raj Kumar has paid a sum of Rs. 1,6,800. 600. 00 per month to his father. There is again nothing to disbelieve him in this regard and the contribution at this rate from August, 1974 till August, 1975 would come to Rs. 7200. 00. In this way, Raj Kumar has paid a sum of Rs. 1,6,800. 00 to his father Raghunandan Gupta, who as such, is entitled to credit for this amount. ( 24 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has submitted that Jeep with registration No. DHB-6468 belonged to Suresh Kumar, which fact was mentioned by the appellant even in the search memo, Ex. Public Witness28/a and that the learned trial court has erred in holding that appellant was the owner of this jeep, worth Rs. 8600. 00 -. There is no oubt that in the search memo, Ex. Public Witness28/a, there is a note that the jeep belonged to Suresh. However, is there any material evidence on record to hold that jeep belongs to Suresh Kumar and my answer is in the negative. Public Witness34, Gurcharan Singh has stated that he purchased jeep from Army disposal in 1975-76 for a sum of Rs. 9700. 00 and that it was sold by him to Suresh Kumar through Ajit Singh, mechanic and payment was made to him by Suresh Kumar at Tilak Mark Office of the Directorate of Transport and that jeep had patrol engine at that time and that it was sold by him for a sum of Rs. 8500. 00 or 8700. 00. He was declared hostile and during cross-examination on behalf of the prosecution, he has denied that the jeep was sold by him to Raghunandan Gupta. Ajit Singh, Public Witness14 has stated that one Suresh Gupta came to his shop for replacing of petrol engine of jeep but he did not remember the number of the vehicle and that it had petrolengine, which was changed by him with a diesel engine and normally he used to charge Rs. 1000. 00 or 1500. 00. According to him, Suresh Kumar came to him because of his reputation and that he did not know I Raghunandan Gupta accused or his son Suresh. DW7, Suresh Kumar has claimed that he had purchased his jeep from his own savings, which was even shown by him in his income tax returns. 1000. 00 or 1500. 00. According to him, Suresh Kumar came to him because of his reputation and that he did not know I Raghunandan Gupta accused or his son Suresh. DW7, Suresh Kumar has claimed that he had purchased his jeep from his own savings, which was even shown by him in his income tax returns. Public Witness44, Hari Mohan Sharma was working as LDC in RTO and has claimed that Gurcharan Singh sold the jeep to Suresh Kumar Gupta on 16. 7. 1976. vide sale letter Ex. Public Witness44/c and that lateron, it was transferred in his name. Raghunandan Gupta has no doubt claimed that jeep belonged to his son, who was an earning hand and had purchased it from his own sources. The aforesaid evidence makes it abundantly clear that registration of this jeep was transferred in the name of Suresh Kumar Gupta on 16. 7. 1976 i. e. much after the date on which the search of the house was made. It is,thus, clear that on 30. 9. 1975, when the jeep was parked outse the house of Raghunandan Gupta, its registration continued to be in the name of previous owner, while Raghunandan Gupta claimed that it belonged to Suresh Kumar. In these circumstances, the possibility of Raghunandan Gupta being the owner of this jeep cannot be ruled out and hence,he cannot be given any credit for this amount, which has rightly been declined by the learned trial court. ( 25 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned trial court has wrongly concluded that the appellant had incurred a sum of Rs. 66,450. 00 on house-hold expenses including expenses on grossery, kitchen, education of children,clothing, fruits, milk, house rent, electricity charges,entertainment and miscellaneous articles, since the standard of appellant was much below to the standard of a Gazetted Officer. He has, in this regard referred to the statement of Raghunandan Gupta as DW8 and statement of D. P. Varshaney, DW 10, who was working as a colleague with the appellant. This witness has made a categorical statement that Raghunandan Gupta was like a Class III officer and Inot like a Gazetted Officer, though, he was a Gazetted Officer. He has, in this regard referred to the statement of Raghunandan Gupta as DW8 and statement of D. P. Varshaney, DW 10, who was working as a colleague with the appellant. This witness has made a categorical statement that Raghunandan Gupta was like a Class III officer and Inot like a Gazetted Officer, though, he was a Gazetted Officer. He has also claimed that he did not see any domestic servant with R. N. Gupta and his reputation was good in the department but on account of his forth -right way of dealing with superior officers, he was not getting even with them. He has claimed that they used to meet each other once or twice a month and that be remained in service till 1976 and did not meet Raghunandan Gupta after 1964. It can not be said that this witness was in any way interested in the appellant and he was a senior Officer of Raghunandan Gupta. There can possibily be no dispute that the estimate of kitchen expenses is only an estimate and it can not be full proof conclusion. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant has been that there are house-hold articles, which have been found in the house at the time of search and they are old one, value of which has been assessed and the appellant should get credit for the same. It is a matter of common experience that different persons have different was of life and it is not necessary that every body must be spending on house- hold at the universal scale. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that at least a sum of Rs. 10,000. 00 should be deducted from the estimate of the prosecution, can not be said to be without substance. Thus, I hold that the house hold expenses were Rs. 56,450. 00 and in this way, appellant, in my view, is entitled to a credit of Rs 10,000. 00 ( 26 ) AS already discussed, there is a long check period in the case of the appellant, which is from 1959 to September, 1975. As admitted by the learned trial court during all this long period, the chances of there being certain ommissions with regard to the income and expenses could not be ruled out. 00 ( 26 ) AS already discussed, there is a long check period in the case of the appellant, which is from 1959 to September, 1975. As admitted by the learned trial court during all this long period, the chances of there being certain ommissions with regard to the income and expenses could not be ruled out. There can possibily be no dispute that while assessing the disproportionate assets, court could have given benefit of Rs. 10% variation. In the instant case, no such credit has been given. On calculating the amounts, which have now been held to be proved by the appellant, it is found that the appellant gets a credit of Rs. 78,598. 00 as against the total disproportionate amount of Rs. 73,210. 00 -. There has thus, been no disproportionate asset in the hand of the appellant. The conviction and sentence of the appellant for being found in possession of disproportionate assets, thus, can not be sustained and has to be set aside. ( 27 ) IN view of my aforesaid discussion, appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence of Raghunandan Gupta, appellant, are set aside and he is acquitted. Raghunandan Gupta is on bail. His bail bonds stand cancelled. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded.