JUDGMENT: This appeal has been filed against the conviction and sentence dated 25.1.1993, passed against the accused in C.C.No.2 of 1987, on the file of the learned Special Judge (I Additional Sessions Judge), Madurai, under Sec.5(i)(e) read with 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 2. The Inspector of Police, S.P.E./C.B.I., Madras filed a complaint against the accused R.Janakiraman, stating that the accused was appointed as public servant in the post of Permanent Way Inspector before promoting him as Assistant Engineer in the Southern Railways; that he was posted at Kuppam, Katpadi and Dindigul during the period from 1.5.1976 to 29.5.1986; that when the residence of the accused was searched on 29.5.1986 it was found that the accused had acquired assets in his name and in the name of his wife Smt.J.Pattammal to the extent of Rs.4,63,551, which were disproportionate to the known sources of his income; that the accused could not satisfactorily account for such assets and that thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec.5(i)(e) read with 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 3. The Special Judge (I Additional Sessions Judge), Madurai, after going through the material evidence placed before Court and after hearing both sides, framed charge under Sec.5(i)(e) read with 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and read over and explained the same to the accused. The accused denied having committed any offence mentioned in the charge. 4. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 23, filed Exs.P-1 to P-1254 and marked M.Os.1 to 20. The case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows: The accused R.Janakiraman joined the Southern Railway as Apprentice Permanent Way Inspector on 5.7.1958 and he was promoted as Permanent Way Inspector on 27.11.1962. He was posted at Kuppam, Chittoor District, where he worked till 1976 and thereafter he was transferred to Katpadi and he became Grade I permanent Way Inspector on 24.11.1979. He was then promoted as Assistant Engineer on 28.5.1981 and posted at Dindigul. The father of the accused retired as Office Superintendent in 1956 and died in the year 1985, leaving six sons, including the accused, and three daughters. The mother of the accused, who was also left as one of the heirs, is residing at Door No.35-B, Subramaniam Nagar, Salem and the said house was purchased by her husband. The brothers and sisters of the accused were already married. The mother of the accused, who was also left as one of the heirs, is residing at Door No.35-B, Subramaniam Nagar, Salem and the said house was purchased by her husband. The brothers and sisters of the accused were already married. The accused married one Smt.Pattammal and has two sons, out of whom, one was studying in Engineering College in the year 1986. 5. The Inspector of Police S.P.E./C.B.I. Madras received an information that the accused was not enjoying good reputation and he was corrupt. He also received information that the accused was having assets to an extent of Rs.87,500, disproportionate to his known sources of income. Therefore, he registered a case against the accused in Cr.No.R.C.33 of 1986 on 28.5.1986 at 1.00 p.m., for the check period from 1.5.1976 to 29.5.1986 as seen in Ex.P-110, the First Information Report, and started investigating the matter, after obtaining authorisation from the Superintendent of Police, S.P.E./C.B.I. Madras, on 28.5.1986, as seen in Ex.P-111, the proceedings of the said Superintendent of Police. A Search Warrant, in R.O.C. 2141/86-D, dated 29.5.1986 was obtained from the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, to search the residence of the accused at No.16, North Railway Colony, Dindigul. As per the request made by the Superintendent of Police, S.P.E./C.B.I. Madras-6, the Assistant Collector to Central Excise Dindigul had directed P.W.9 Thiru T.Rodriques and Thiru Jagannathan, Inspectors of Central Excise, Dindigul Division, Dindigul, to meet P.W.23 Thiru Chelladurai, Inspector of Police, S.P.E./ C.B.I., Chennai, at Bawa Lodge, Dindigul, at 7.30 a.m. on 29.5.1986. Accordingly, the said witnesses met P.W.23 at Bawa Lodge, Dindigul, at about 7.30 a.m. on 29.5.1986. P.W.23, along with P.W.9 and Jagannathan, went to the house of the accused at 7.45 a.m. on 29.5.1986 and found that Radhakrishnan, the son of the accused about his proposal to search the house, after showing the search warrant. Radhakrishnan said that his parents had gone to attend a marriage at Madurai. P.W.23 contacted the Divisional Engineer at Madurai and requested him to inform the accused, who was at Madurai, about the search of his house at Dindigul and also to ask him to come to his house immediately. Thereafter, P.W.23 in the presence of the said witnesses, commenced the search at 8.00 a.m. The accused reached his house at 11.30. while his wife came by 2.45 p.m. on 29.5.1986. Thereafter, P.W.23 in the presence of the said witnesses, commenced the search at 8.00 a.m. The accused reached his house at 11.30. while his wife came by 2.45 p.m. on 29.5.1986. In the search, P.W.3 seized 34 items of documents and cash of Rs.2,94,615, excluding a sum of Rs.500 said to have been given to the accused as reward by the General Manager, Southern Railways. The documents and the abovesaid cash were kept in two almirants in the bed room. The cash had been kept in 10 containers like Britannia Biscuit box, Eveready mantle tin box, Parry’s Sweet in box, plastic box and V.I.P. brief case etc., which have been marked as M.Os.1 to 20. The same were seized under Ex.P-57 search List. An Inventory List Ex.P-58 was prepared with regard to the items of properties found in the house and valuation was made in accordance with the value given by the accused and his wife. Ex.P-59 series are the copies of payslips found in the house of the accused. Ex.P-60, a diary, is containing particulars of expenditure incurred for the maintenance of the family and Exs.P-61 and P-62 are the diaries containing the particulars of Fixed Deposits standing in the names of the accused and his wife and pay particulars respectively which were also seized. P.W.9 and the other witness present initialled in all the documents and signed as attestors in Exs.P-57 and P-58. Copies of Exs.P-57 and P-58 were furnished to the accused and his signature was obtained in all the abovesaid documents. He also acknowledged receipt of these copies. The search was completed at 9.00 p.m. on 29.5.1986. 6. P.W.23 produced the properties seized from the house of the accused before the learned Sub 30.5.1986 and, with his endorsement, produced the same before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai on 2.6.1986. With his approval, the said properties were again produced before the Special Judge (I Additional Sessions Judge), Madurai on 11.6.1986. The delay in producing the properties before the Special Court was explained in the letter Ex.P-12, by P.W.23. 7, P.W.23 had taken the period from 1.5.1976 to 29.5.1986 as check period and fixed the initial asset of the accused on 1.5.1976 as Rs.13,449.17 based on his enquiry. The delay in producing the properties before the Special Court was explained in the letter Ex.P-12, by P.W.23. 7, P.W.23 had taken the period from 1.5.1976 to 29.5.1986 as check period and fixed the initial asset of the accused on 1.5.1976 as Rs.13,449.17 based on his enquiry. The accused is having a house property at No.10, Swarnapuri, Salem and has let out the said property on a monthly rent of Rs.650 after receiving an advance amount of Rs.3250. The evidence of P.W.16 Vadivelu supports the evidence of P.W.23 with regard to the rental income of Rs.650 p.m. from the said house property owned by the accused. P.W.3 Sethurajan, Senior Clerk in the Personnel Section of the office of the Railway A.P.O., Madurai and P.W.6 Thiru V.Thirumalachari, Assistant Labour Welfare Officer in the Southern Railway, Madurai have spoken about the pay drawn particulars of the accused for the period from 21.5.1981 to June 1986 and produced Ex.P-15, which is the Pay Drawn Particulars of the accused for the abovesaid period. In Ex.P-15, the carry home salary of the accused during the abovesaid period, after deducting a sum of Rs.17,947.80 was shown as Rs.92,114.50. According to P.W.6, the maintenance of rails, giving contract work in connection with maintenance of rails, checking the contract work as mentioned above and issuing certificate are the work of the Permanent Way Inspector and the said work has to be supervised by the immediate superior viz., the Assistant Engineer, who has to look after the maintenance of the buildings of the Southern Railway in addition to the abovesaid work. 8. P.W.5 Panchapakesan, Deputy Chief Special Officer, in the Southern Railway, was working as Divisional Personnel Officer in Chennai Division from September, 1986 to January, 1987. According to P.W.5, the accused was working as Permanent Way Inspector from 20.4.1976 to 20.5.1981 and had drawn a carry home salary of Rs.64,505.05, after deducting Rs.13,180.89. The T.A. particulars were also furnished along with the Pay Drawn Particulars Ex.P-26, produced by P.W.5. P.W.7 Nidhyakalayanam, retired Assistant Labour Welfare Officer, Southern Railway, Madurai, who worked under the Chief Personnel Officer, has produced Ex.P-41 property statements submitted by the accused on 29.9.1986 and Ex.P-42, copy of the covering letter addressed by the Chief Personnel Officer to the Superintendent of Police, S.P.E./C.B.I. Chennai, with regard to the receipt of property statement Ex.P-41. P.W.7 Nidhyakalayanam, retired Assistant Labour Welfare Officer, Southern Railway, Madurai, who worked under the Chief Personnel Officer, has produced Ex.P-41 property statements submitted by the accused on 29.9.1986 and Ex.P-42, copy of the covering letter addressed by the Chief Personnel Officer to the Superintendent of Police, S.P.E./C.B.I. Chennai, with regard to the receipt of property statement Ex.P-41. He has also produced Ex.P-44 and P-45, the loan Sanction Orders for Rs.38,000, which was drawn in three instalments, for the construction of the house referred to above. The accused has earned income to the extent of Rs.1,87,384 during the check period. 9. P.W.1 Thiru Narayanan, Manager of Canara Bank, Nagal Nagar, Dindigul speaks about the Savings Bank Accounts standing in the name of the accused and his wife Smt.Pattammal and transfer of money from the Savings Bank Account to Fixed Deposits in the name of both. The Pass Book Ex.P-1, Ledger copies Exs.P-2 and P-4, Fixed Deposit Receipts Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-5 and the copy of letter dated 20.11.1986 for handing over the documents to C.B.I. are produced by P.W.1. P.W.2 Thiru Gopalsamy, Clerk working in Thanjavur Bank, Nagal Nagar, Dindigul speaks about the Fixed Deposits standing in the name of the accused and his wife Pattammal from 1984. The Fixed Deposit receipts Exs.P-6, P-9 and P-12 and copies of account Exs.P-7, P-10 and P-13, statement Ex.P-8 and certificates of the Manager of the Bank Exs.P-11 and P-14 are the documents produced by P.W.2. P.W.4 Thiru S.Panchapakesan is the Manager of the Bank of Madurai, Dindigul. He speaks about the Fixed Deposits standing in the name of the accused and his wife Smt.Pattammal, from 1984. The Fixed Deposit receipts Exs.P-6, P-9 and P-12 and copies of account Exs.P-7, P-10 and P-13, statement Ex.P-8 and certificates of the Manager of the Bank Exs.P-11 and P-14 are the documents produced by P.W.2. P.W.4 Thiru S.Panchapakesan is the Manager of the Bank of madurai, Dindigul. He speaks about the Fixed Deposits standing in the name of the accused and his wife Smt.Pattammal, as seen in Exs.P-17, P-20, P-21, P-23, copies of ledger, Exs.P-19, P-22, P-24 and P-25. P.W.8 Thiru S.Srinivasan is the Accountant in the Indian Bank at Dindigul. P.W.4 Thiru S.Panchapakesan is the Manager of the Bank of madurai, Dindigul. He speaks about the Fixed Deposits standing in the name of the accused and his wife Smt.Pattammal, as seen in Exs.P-17, P-20, P-21, P-23, copies of ledger, Exs.P-19, P-22, P-24 and P-25. P.W.8 Thiru S.Srinivasan is the Accountant in the Indian Bank at Dindigul. He speaks about the opening of Savings Bank Account as seen in Ex.P-47, in the name of the accused in the Indian Bank at Tharapadaiveedu, and the transfer of Fixed Deposit from Kuppam, Chittoor District to the said bank. He has also produced Ex.P-48, copy of the ledger showing the amount available in the Savings Bank Account. While speaking about the interest accrued from the Savings Bank Accounts and the Fixed Deposits standing in the names of the accused and his wife Smt.Pattammal, he has spoken about the Fixed Deposits Exs.P-49, P-51, P-53 and P-55 apart from producing the copies of ledgers Exs.P-52, P-54 and P-56 respectively. P.W.12 Thiru R.Sundar was formerly working in the State Bank of India, Vellore. He has spoken about the Fixed Deposits standing in the name of the accused and his wife in the said bank as seen in Exs.P-84, P-87 and P-89 as well as statements Exs.P-85, P-86 and P-88. P.W.13 Thiru Hariharan is the Branch Manager of Canara Bank at Chellampatti. He has spoken about the opening of Savings Bank Account in the name of the accused and his wife Smt.Pattammal, in the Canara Bank, Chellampatti. The copy of the ledger is Ex.P-90. P.W.22 Thiru Ramanathan is the Bank Officer of Indian Bank at Tharapadaiveedu from 1984 to 1986. He speaks about the opening of Savings Bank Account and closing of the same on 22.6.1981 and transferring of the said account to Indian Bank, Dindigul and also about converting by transfer of amount from Savings Bank Account into fixed deposits. He has produced Ex.P-102, xerox copy of ledger with regard to the Savings Bank Account of the accused and his wife, as also Fixed Deposit receipts Exs.P-103 to P-108. He has spoken about Ex.P-109 the statement of the Manager of the Bank in connection with the transfer of Savings Bank Account from Tharapadaiveedu branch to Dindigul branch. He has produced Ex.P-102, xerox copy of ledger with regard to the Savings Bank Account of the accused and his wife, as also Fixed Deposit receipts Exs.P-103 to P-108. He has spoken about Ex.P-109 the statement of the Manager of the Bank in connection with the transfer of Savings Bank Account from Tharapadaiveedu branch to Dindigul branch. The accused had an income of Rs.1,81,608.13 from the Fixed Deposit Receipts and also by way of interest from the said amounts as seen from the evidence of abovesaid witnesses and documents. Admittedly, there is no other income to the accused or to his wife, who is a house wife, during the check period. The total income of the accused during the check period was fixed at Rs.2,81,497.93. 10. The diary Ex.P-60, seized from the house of the accused contains the particulars of expenditure incurred for the maintenance of family for the period excluding May, 1976 to December, 1977 and July, 1984 to 29.5.1986. The said diary was admittedly written by Pattammal, wife of the accused. P.W.18 Thiru R.Gnanasundaram is the Assistant Director of Statistics in the office of the Director of Statistics at Madras and retired from service. He has calculated the expenditure incurred by the family of the accused on the basis of the family expenditure survey made by the Director, Labour Bureau, Shimla and increase in cost of living in the subsequent periods. According to P.W.18, the expenditure to the family of the accused from May, 1976 to December, 1977 was Rs.7,200 and from July, 1984 to 29.5.1986 was Rs.18,364. Ex.P-100 is the report given by him. The expenditure incurred by the accused during the check period was calculated at Rs.88.645.92. The net saving of the accused during the check period was calculated at Rs.1,92,852.01 (2,81,497.93 -88,645.92=1,92,852.01) 11. P.W. 17 Thiru Mohanan was working as Assistant Engineer in the Central Public Works Department, Salem. He inspected the property at Door No.10, Swarnapuri, Salem, owned by the accused, on 2.11.1986, along with P.W.23. He found the constructed plinth area of the building as 114.7 sq.metres and prepared a sketch Ex.P-98. He valued the cost of construction of the building itemwise and arrived at the value of the property at Rs.1,08,740 including the value of electrical installations and three fans. Ex.P-99 is the report of P.W.17. P.W.23 arrived at the value of the assets of the accused as on 29.5.1986 at Rs.6,69,852.78. He valued the cost of construction of the building itemwise and arrived at the value of the property at Rs.1,08,740 including the value of electrical installations and three fans. Ex.P-99 is the report of P.W.17. P.W.23 arrived at the value of the assets of the accused as on 29.5.1986 at Rs.6,69,852.78. After deducting the initial asset of Rs.13,449.17 available at the commencement of the check period viz., 1.5.1976, P.W.23 arrived at the assets of the accused during the said period at Rs.6,56,403.61. After deducting savings of the accused during the check period viz., Rs.1,92,852.01 from the total asset of Rs.6,56,403.61, the disproportionate asset in the hands of the accused during the check period was arrived at Rs.4,63,551.60. 12. The accused was examined and his statement was recorded on 17.6.1986. The accused informed P.W.23 that he had raised a loan of Rs.2,50,000 on 24.5.1986 from P.W.11 Chandiram and P.W.15 Chatramdoss, money-lenders at Salem. The accused has also told P.W.23 that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.15,000 from his co-brother P.W.10 Thiru Jagannathan and a sum of Rs.10,000 from another co-brother P.W.20 Thiru T.Ranganathan. P.W.23 raided the houses and places of business of P.Ws.11 and 15 of 19.6.1986 in the presence of the Income Tax Officer Thiru Thiagarajan and Income Tax Inspectors Thiru Govindasamy and Thiru Jothi and seized Exs.P-64 and P-65 Promissory Notes, signed by the accused and Narayanasamy, the brother of accused, Exs.P-66 and P-67 guarantee letters signed by Kasinathan, D.W.3 Ramachandran and Narayanasamy, brothers of the accused, Ex.P-68 confidential form signed by the abovesaid three brothers, Ex.P-69, equitable mortgage executed by the accused and also Promissory Note entry books, Day Books, Cash Books, maintained by P.Ws.11 and 15, containing entries Ex.P-70 to P-81, ownership certificate Ex.P-82 and three electric bills Ex.P-83 series in the presence of the abovesaid witnesses. 13. P.W.23 sent Exs.P-64 to P-83 to the Director of Income Tax, Chennai, through the Superintendent of Police S.P.E./C.B.I. Chennai on 24.6.1987 for investigation under the Income Tax Act. Thiru Venugopal, Deputy Director of Income Tax, who received the said documents from the Director of Income Tax, instructed P.W.14 Thiru K.Ramalingam, Income Tax Officer, Intelligence Wing, Madras to investigate the matter with regard to the documentary evidence sent to the Department. P.W.14 proceeded to Salem and summoned P.Ws.11 and 15 to appear before him in the office of the Income Tax, Salem and recorded their statements on 25.6.1986. P.W.14 proceeded to Salem and summoned P.Ws.11 and 15 to appear before him in the office of the Income Tax, Salem and recorded their statements on 25.6.1986. The statements of P.Ws.11 and 15 are Exs.P-91 and P-92, respectively. P.W.23 examined P.W.14 Thiru Ramalingam on 1.7.1986 and recorded his statement and obtained the copies of Exs.P-91 and P-92 from the Deputy Director of Income Tax, Thiru Rajagopal, after having known about the statements given by P.Ws.11 and 15 through P.W.14. P.W.14 produced Ex.P-91 and Ex.P-92 and had spoken about the contents of the said documents before the trial court. 14. In the statements Exs.P-91 and P-92, P.Ws.11 and 15 have stated that the brothers of the accused viz., Narayanasamy, Kasinathan, and D.W.3 Ramachandran, who are close friends of P.W.11 approached P.Ws.11 and 15 for a loan of rupees two to three lakhs for their brother Janakiraman, the accused herein, for purchasing a house at Coimbatore; that P.Ws.11 and 15 informed them that they were not having money to advance loan; that thereafter the abovesaid three brothers requested P.Ws.11 and 15 at least to create entries as loan advanced in their records for Rs.2.5 lakhs, since the accused had already advanced Rs.2.5 lakhs on 24.5.1986 for purchase of the house; that they had even offered to pay commission of rupees three to four thousands for such creation of records; that in order to oblige the brothers of the accused, P.W.11 who is the elder brother’s son of P.W.15 and P.W.15 had agreed to create false records as if a sum of Rs.1.25 lakhs each had been given as loan to the accused, for which Exs.P-64 to P-83 were created on 30.5.1986; that the documents were actually handed over to them only on 1.6.1986; that they came to know that the three brothers of the accused have created them only after having known through P.Ws.23 about the raid of the house of the accused and recovery of a sum of rupees about three lakhs, on 29.5.1986, at the time of raid of their business places and residence on 19.6.1986. 15. P.W.23, after examining P.W.14 and getting copies of Exs.P-91 and P-92 registered a case in S.P.E./C.B.I. Cr.N.41/86 on 8.7.1986 against the accused, their brothers Kasinathan, Narayanasamy and D.W.3 Ramachandran and also against P.W.11 Chandiram and P.W.15 Chatramdoss. P.Ws.11 and 15 were arrested on 1.8.1986 and were released on their own bond. 15. P.W.23, after examining P.W.14 and getting copies of Exs.P-91 and P-92 registered a case in S.P.E./C.B.I. Cr.N.41/86 on 8.7.1986 against the accused, their brothers Kasinathan, Narayanasamy and D.W.3 Ramachandran and also against P.W.11 Chandiram and P.W.15 Chatramdoss. P.Ws.11 and 15 were arrested on 1.8.1986 and were released on their own bond. P.Ws.11 and 15 who are accused in Cr.No.41 of 1986 appeared before the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras and offered to give confession on 11.8.1986 and 8.9.1986 respectively. After warning P.Ws.1 1 and 15 who are accused in Cr.No.41 of 1986 and after following the formalities, P.W.19, Thiru Pechimuthu, learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, recorded the confessional statement of P.W.11 viz., Ex.P-93 and the confessional statement of P.W.15 viz., Ex.P-96 on 12.8.1986 and 9.9.1986 respectively. P.W.19 speaks about recording of Ex.P-93 and Ex.P-96 confessional statements given by P.Ws.11 and 15 as accused in Cr.No.41 of 1986 wherein P.Ws.11 and 15 have admitted that they have created false entries for Rs.1.25 lakhs each on 30.5.1986 as if money was advanced by them on 24.5.1986, even though no money was advanced actually to the accused on 24.5.1986 or on any subsequent dates. 16. P.W.10 Thiru A.Jagannathan and P.W.20 Thiru T.Ranganathan, co-brothers of the accused were treated as hostile witnesses by the prosecution. On the request made by P.W.23 Chelladurai, Inspector, S.P.E./C.B.I., Chennai, through his superiors, the Railway Board, after going through the report and material evidence placed before it, sanctioned the prosecution of the accused as seen in the Sanction Order Ex.P-101 and authorised the Secretary of the Railway Board to sign the sanction order. P.W.21 Thiru B.K.Makhija, Joint Director, Vigilance, Railway Board, New Delhi has spoken to that effect and produced Ex.P-101. It is thereafter that the prosecution has filed the complaint against the accused for the offence of having assets disproportionate to his known sources of income during the check period mentioned above. 17. After considering the material evidence placed before court, the learned Special Judge (I Additional Sessions Judge), Madurai has come to the conclusion that the accused could not satisfactorily account for owning assets to the extent of Rs.3,05,985.39 during the check period and thus the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.5(i)(e) read with 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Accordingly, the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 months. The material objects M.Os.1 to 20 were ordered to be confiscated to the State. Aggrieved at the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused on 25.1.1993 in C.C.No.2 of 1987, the accused, as appellant, has come forward with this appeal. 18. The point for consideration is whether there are grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused by the learned Special Judge (I Additional Sessions Judge), Madurai. 19.Point: The fact remains that the accused R.Janakiraman had married Smt.J.Pattammal in the year 1965 and had two sons out of the said wedlock. The first son Radhakrishnan was studying III year Engineering in Government College of Technology, Coimbatore, while his second son Jagadeesan was studying in X Standard in M.S.V.Solaiappa Nadar School, Dindigul in the year 1986. Admittedly, the accused had six brothers and three sisters who were already married. The mother of the accused was residing in the house bearing Door No.35-B, Subramania Nagar, Salem, which was purchased by her husband who died in the year 1985, after retiring as Office Superintendent in Railway Service, in the year 1956. The fact also remains that the accused joined as Apprentice Permanent Way Inspector on 5.7.1957 and he was promoted as Permanent Way Inspector on 25.11.1962, when he was posted at Kuppam in Chittoor District. The accused was working there till 1976 and he was transferred to Katpadi in the same cadre. The accused became Permanent Way Inspector Grade I, on 24.11.1979 and he was promoted as Assistant Engineer on 28.5.1981 and posted at Dindigul. Admittedly, P.W.23, after receiving reliable information that the accused does not enjoy good reputation and is reportedly corrupt while functioning as Assistant Engineer in the Southern Railway, Dindigul from 1981 onwards, registered a case in Cr.No.R.C.33 of 1986 on 29.5.1986 at 1.00 p.m. under Sec.5(i)(e) read with 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as seen in Ex.P-110 and proceeded with the investigation, after obtaining authorisation of the Superintendent of Police, S.P.E./C.B.I. Madras, on 28.5.1986, as seen in Ex.P-111. The evidence of P.W.23 would show that P.W.9 Thiru Rodriques, and Thiru Jagannathan, Central Excise Inspectors, working at Dindigul, as per the direction of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Dindigul Division, met P.W.23 at 7.30 a.m. on 29.5.1986 in Bawa lodge at Dindigul. It is also the evidence of P.W.23 that he proceeded from the lodge along with P.W.9 and Thiru Jagannathan at 7.45 a.m. for making search of the house of the accused, bearing Door No.16, Railway Quarters North Colony, Dindigul, as per the search warrant already obtained from the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras and found the accused, along with his wife, already left the house to attend a marriage at Madurai. It is also evident from the evidence of P.W.23, that the search warrant was shown to Radhakrishnan son of the accused. P.W.23 also informed the Divisional Engineer at Madurai through phone to inform the accused to come to his house immediately as search was going on in his house and commenced the search at 8.00 a.m. It is not in dispute that the accused, who was having the keys of the three steel almirahs in his possession, reached his house at Dindigul at 11.30 a.m. while his wife returned to the house by 2.45 p.m. on that day. The fact also remains that from the almirahs P.W.23 recovered 34 items of documents and cash of Rs.2,94,615. The abovesaid amount was divided into 10 portions and were kept in 10 containers viz., Britannia biscuit box, Eveready mantle tin box, Parry’s sweet in box, plastic box etc. The abovesaid cash bundles were wrapped in white paper separately by the accused and kept in the abovesaid containers. They are M.Os.1 to 20. Admittedly, the documents and the cash with containers were seized by preparing a search list Ex.P-57, which was attested by P.W.9 and Thiru Jagannathan, who accompanied P.W.23. The accused acknowledged the receipt of the copy of Ex.P-57 by signing all the pages in Ex.P-57 along with Ex.P-58 inventory list, prepared with regard to the properties available in the house of the accused at the time of the search, which were valued as per the statement made by the accused and his wife. It is not in dispute that the diary Ex.P-60 showing the expenses incurred for the specific period mentioned therein was written in the handwriting of Smt.Pattammal, the wife of the accused. It is not in dispute that the diary Ex.P-60 showing the expenses incurred for the specific period mentioned therein was written in the handwriting of Smt.Pattammal, the wife of the accused. Ex.P-61, another diary containing entries regarding Fixed Deposits standing in the names of the accused and his wife and yet another diary Ex.P-62, containing pay particulars were seized by P.W.23 in the presence of P.W.9 and Thiru Jagannathan. A bunch of pay bills as seen in Ex.P-69 was also seized from the house of the accused at the time of search. The evidence of P.W.23 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.9. The documentary and oral evidence referred to above would disclose that a sum of Rs.2,94,615 was seized by P.W.23 on 29.5.1986 in the house of the accused after leaving a sum of Rs.500 which was claimed to have been given as a reward by the General Manager of Southern Railway to the accused. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 13 and 22 and Exs.P-1 to P-14, P-17 to 26, P-42, P-47 to P-56, P-84 to P-89, P-102 and P-109 would disclose that the accused was having Savings Bank Accounts and Fixed Deposits in the names of himself and his wife together in Canara Bank, Nagal Nagar, Dindigul, Thanjavur Bank, Nagal Nagar, Dindigul, Bank of Madurai, Dindigul, Indian Bank, Dindigul, Indian Bank, Tharapadaiveedu, State Bank of India, Vellore and Canara Bank, Chellampatti. It is also evident from the abovesaid witness and documentary evidence that the accused was having a sum of Rs.1,81,608.13 invested in Fixed Deposits with interest during the period from 1.5.1976 to 29.5.1986, which was taken as check period by the prosecution. The amount arrived at by the prosecution as owned by the accused during the check period as mentioned above has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the accused. 20. The evidence of P.W.3, P.W.5, P.W.6 and P.W.7, officers employed in the Southern Railway and Exs.P-15, P-16, P-26, P-41, P-42, P-44 and P-45 would disclose that the accused had earned a sum of Rs.1,87,384 during the check period. The evidence of P.W.16 would disclose that the accused is the owner of the house bearing door No.10, Swarnapuri, Salem; that the accused is getting a monthly rent of Rs.650 from P.W.16 apart from having received a sum of Rs.3,250 as advance. The evidence of P.W.16 would disclose that the accused is the owner of the house bearing door No.10, Swarnapuri, Salem; that the accused is getting a monthly rent of Rs.650 from P.W.16 apart from having received a sum of Rs.3,250 as advance. The said rental income has also to be included in the income of the accused during the check period. The interest accrued from the Savings Bank Account bearing Nos.376, 3584 and 8371, in Indian Bank at Kuppam, Katpadi, Salem, from Account No.I193 in Canara Bank, Dindigul, and from Account No.10461 from Canara Bank, Sooramangalam, Salem should also be included in the income of the accused during the check period. The total income during the check period by way of salary, interest, rent, advance received from the tenant and house building loan of Rs.38,000 received from the Department, all put together comes to Rs.2,81,497.93 from 1.5.1976 to 29.5.1986. The said quantum arrived at by the prosecution has also not been disputed on the side of the accused. The evidence of P.W.18 and his report Ex.P-100 and the diary Ex.P-60 written by Smt.Pattammal, wife of the accused, would disclose that the accused has spent for the maintenance of the family a sum of Rs.88,645.92 during the check period 1.5.1976 to 29.5.1986. Therefore, the surplus income saved by the accused during the check period should be Rs.1,92,852.01 (2,81,497,93 -88,645,92=1,92,852.01). 21. The prosecution has come to the conclusion that the initial asset of the family of the accused as on 1.5.1976 was Rs.13,449.17. The same was disputed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused stating that the prosecution has omitted to add the interest amounts received from the Fixed Deposits standing in the names of the accused and his wife to an extent of Rs.60,310.14 as on 1.5.1976; that if the said amount is also included along with Rs.13,449.17 arrived at by the prosecution, the initial assets as on 1.5.1976 will come to Rs.73,759.31. P.W.23 during cross-examination admitted that the accused had received a sum of Rs.49,749.44 as on 1.5.1976 and the same has been omitted to be included in the initial asset. If that be so, the initial asset owned by the accused as on 1.5.1976 will come to Rs.63,198.61. P.W.23 during cross-examination admitted that the accused had received a sum of Rs.49,749.44 as on 1.5.1976 and the same has been omitted to be included in the initial asset. If that be so, the initial asset owned by the accused as on 1.5.1976 will come to Rs.63,198.61. The learned counsel for the accused who wants to sustain the conclusion of the trial court in paragraph 30 of the judgment could not substantiate his contention by sufficient evidence to establish that the accused has received interest as on 1.5.1976 to an extent of Rs.60,310.14. In the absence of any evidence such contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the accused cannot be sustained. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the trial court in adding a sum of Rs.60,310.14 instead of Rs.49,749.44 cannot also be sustained. Therefore, this Court holds that the accused had initial assets of Rs.63,198.61 as on 1.5.1976, i.e., at the time of commencement of the check period. 22. It is yet another contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the accused had spent a sum of Rs.80,000 alone as found by the trial court for construction of the house in Plot No.10, Swarnapuri, Salem and, therefore, the cost of construction arrived at by the prosecution with regard to the abovesaid house at Rs.1,08,740 is excess by Rs.28,740. The prosecution contends contra, relying on the evidence given by P.W.17 Assistant Engineer of Central Public Works Department, Salem. The evidence of P.W.17 would disclose that he had inspected the demised premises on 2.11.1986 in the presence of P.W.23 along with the plan Ex.P-93 given by the prosecution. He also prepared a sketch as seen in Ex.P-98 tallies with Ex.P-93. The built in plinth area was found to be 114.7 sq. meters. The evidence of P.W.17 and the report Ex.P-99 given by P.W.17 would disclose that P.W.17 has valued the cost of construction itemwise and had also taken into consideration the electrical installations and three fans fitted in the said premises. It was contended on behalf of the accused that the reduction in cost of construction was due to bringing of labourers from his native place for construction purposes and also due to the purchasing of country wood from his place. None was examined to prove that workers for construction of the building was brought from . It was contended on behalf of the accused that the reduction in cost of construction was due to bringing of labourers from his native place for construction purposes and also due to the purchasing of country wood from his place. None was examined to prove that workers for construction of the building was brought from . his place part from purchasing country wood from his place for user of the same in the building. There is also no other material on the side of the accused to show that the building in the abovesaid premises was constructed at the cost of the abovesaid premises was constructed at the cost of Rs.80,000. In the absence of evidence on the side of the accused, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the accused that the building estimated to have been constructed at a cost of Rs.1,08,740 by the prosecution was constructed only at a cost of Rs.80,000 cannot be accepted. In view of the said position, this Court is of opinion that the trial court has committed an error in accepting the case of the accused that the building of the accused was constructed at a cost of Rs.80,000 ignoring the evidence of P.W.17 and his report Ex.P-99. 23. It is yet another contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the prosecution has committed an error in arriving at the conclusion that the interest accrued from the Fixed Deposits was only Rs.57,583.91 and in fact, the interest from such deposits was Rs.91,666.25. Various witnesses were examined as mentioned above on the side of the prosecution to prove the Savings Bank Accounts and Fixed Deposit Accounts standing in the name of the accused and his wife and also to prove the interest accrued therefrom. Nothing was elicited from any of the witnesses to substantiate the contention of the accused that a sum of Rs.91,666.25 has to be shown as income by way of interest instead of Rs.57,583.91. To this also the defence side had not shown as to how the calculation of interest by the prosecution at Rs.57,583.91 was in error and the correct interest accrued was Rs.91,666.25. To this also the defence side had not shown as to how the calculation of interest by the prosecution at Rs.57,583.91 was in error and the correct interest accrued was Rs.91,666.25. In the absence of any acceptable evidence to the satisfaction of this Court, the prosecution was right in contending that the trial court has committed an error in accepting the interest accrued from the Savings Bank accounts and Fixed Deposits at Rs.91,666.25 as against Rs.57,583.91 shown by the prosecution. In view of the said position, this Court is not able to agree with the conclusion arrived at by the trial court as mentioned in paragraph 32 of the judgment. 24. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the accused contends that the prosecution has committed an error in not including Rs.15,922.60 for the period from 1.9.1983 to 7.7.1983 and Rs.10,000 for the period from 1.6.1983 to 31.8.1983 towards travelling allowance, totalling to Rs.25,922.60 and therefore the abovesaid amount has been rightly included in the income of the accused during the check period of the trial court. The learned Special Public Prosecutor contends contra stating that Travelling Allowance cannot be included as income as per the settled legal position prevailing in the judicial field. In support of the said contention, he relied on a decision reported in Govinda Reddi v. State of Mysore, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 29, wherein the Apex Court was pleaded to hold as follows: "The prosecution would not be justified in concluding that Travelling Allowance was also a source of income when such allowance is ordinarily meant to compensate an officer concerned for his out of pocket expenses incidental to journeys performed by him for his official tours. That could not possibly be alleged to be a very substantial source of income. The source of income of a particular individual will depend upon his position in life with particular reference to his occupation or avocation in life. In the case of a Government servant the prosecution would naturally infer that his known source of income would be the salary earned by him during his active service." 25. The source of income of a particular individual will depend upon his position in life with particular reference to his occupation or avocation in life. In the case of a Government servant the prosecution would naturally infer that his known source of income would be the salary earned by him during his active service." 25. In M.M.Gandhi v. State of Mysore, 1960 Crl.L.J. 934, it has been held as follows: "Any travelling allowance given to a whole time Government servant who draws a regular monthly salary, is for the purpose of covering incidental expenses during travelling on Government duty and not intended to be a source of profit." 26. In view of the decisions referred to above, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the accused and the conclusion arrived at by the trial court that a sum of Rs.25,922.00 which was allegedly drawn as travelling allowance during the check period should be included as a source of income to the accused cannot be sustained. 27. The learned Senior Counsel Thiru N.T.Vanamamalai, appearing for the accused contends that the prosecution has committed an error in omitting to include a sum of Rs.8,000 received as bonus and also an interest of Rs.511.11 while deducting a sum of Rs.5,941.02 alone as income by way of interest from the Savings Bank Account Nos.376,3574 and 8371 maintained by the accused. The evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.6 discloses that the accused has drawn bonus as shown in the pay drawn particulars marked as Ex.P-15. The evidence of RW.5 would also disclose the pay drawn particulars of the accused as shown in Ex.P-26. The pay drawn particulars produced before the court as mentioned above would disclose that the bonus got by the accused when he was eligible to get the same was shown as source of income and the said documents and the evidence of P.Ws.3, 5 and 6 have not been questioned as incorrect by the defence. Since the bonus has already been included in the source of income as seen from the documents referred to above, the submission made on the side of the accused that bonus shall be included in the source of income cannot be sustained. In view of the said position, the trial court has committed an error in including the bonus of Rs.8,000 as source of income for the second time. In view of the said position, the trial court has committed an error in including the bonus of Rs.8,000 as source of income for the second time. The conclusion arrived at by the trial court in paragraph 34 of the judgment with regard to the bonus cannot, therefore, be sustained. 28. The evidence available on record by examining the officials of the Banks concerned with reference to the Savings Bank Account Nos.376, 357 and 8371 would disclose that the interest has been correctly included as Rs.5,941.02. None of the witnesses examined in connection with the abovesaid accounts was cross-examined to the effect that the interest calculated in connection with the abovesaid accounts was incorrect. The witnesses examined on the side of the defence viz., D.W.1 Dwaraganath and D.W.2 K.S.Jagadeesan have not also spoken anything about the Savings Bank Accounts referred to in paragraph 34 of the judgment of the trial court. There is no evidence to the satisfaction of this Court that a sum of Rs.511.11 was omitted towards the interest accused in the abovesaid savings account. In the absence of acceptable evidence, the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the accused that a sum of Rs.511.11 was omitted to be included in the interest along with Rs.5,941.02 cannot be sustained. For the said reason, the conclusion arrived at by the trial court in paragraph 34 of its judgment that the abovesaid sum should be included as interest omitted cannot also be sustained. 29. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court is of opinion that a sum of Rs.49,479.44 relating to the interest accrued on the deposits of the accused as on 1.5.1976 alone has to be taken into consideration and not any other amount as pleaded on the side of the accused. It is well settled legal position that to decide the accumulation of assets by a public servant disproportionate to the known source of his income, the entire period of his service need not be taken into account and even a period of seven years from promotion date would not be unreasonable in view of the decision reported in Mahesh Chandra v. State of U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 1151. In this case, a period of 10 years has been taken as check period with effect from 1.5.1976 to 29.5.1986 and therefore there was no dispute on the side of the accused that the check period taken by the prosecution for calculating the accumulation of assets by the accused is a sufficient period. 30. The prosecution has fixed the assets accumulated by the accused as on 29.5.1986 at Rs.6,69,852.78, even though the accused has admitted the accumulated value of his assets as mentioned in paragraph 29 of the judgment at Rs.6,41,112.78. The accused has fixed the value of the asset at Rs.6,41,112.78 taking the value of the building owned by him at Door No.10, Swarnapuri, Salem, at Rs.80,000 instead of Rs.1,08,740. The contention raised on behalf of the accused that the value of the building referred to above was Rs.80,000 was negatived by this Court and the value of the said building was held to be taken as Rs.1,08,740 as opined by P.W.17 Assistant Engineer, Central Public Works Department, Salem. Therefore, the value of the assets of the accused as on 29.5.1986 has to be taken as Rs.6,69,852.78. If the initial assets of the accused is taken as Rs.63,198.61 instead of Rs.13,449.17, the assets owned by the accused at the end of the check period will be Rs.6,06,654.17. If the surplus income of Rs.1,92,852.01 of the accused during the check period is deducted from the value of the assets of the accused available during the check period, viz., 6.06,654.17, the assets available disproportionate to his known sources of income will be Rs.4,13,802.17. It is for the accused to explain as to how he is owning or in possession of assets to the extent of Rs.4,13,802.16 disproportionate to his known sources of income. 31. According to the learned counsel for the accused, the accused has raised a loan of Rs.15,000 from his co-brother P.W.10 Thiru A.Jagannathan and another sum of Rs.10,000 from another co-brother P.W.20 Thiru Ranganathan, before the search of his house. It is also the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the accused had raised a loan of Rs.2.50 lakhs from P.Ws.11 and 15 on 24.5.1986 in connection with the purchase of a house at Coimbatore and, therefore, the abovesaid sum of Rs.2.75 lakhs has to be deducted from the total assets found from the accused during the check period. It is also the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the accused had raised a loan of Rs.2.50 lakhs from P.Ws.11 and 15 on 24.5.1986 in connection with the purchase of a house at Coimbatore and, therefore, the abovesaid sum of Rs.2.75 lakhs has to be deducted from the total assets found from the accused during the check period. P.W.10, who claimed to have advanced a loan of Rs.15,000 to the accused admits that the letter Ex.P-63, dated 9.5.1986 was written by his daughter Mythili to the wife of the accused who is none other than the sister of his wife, by way of reply to the letter sent by the wife of the accused to his son J.Ramesh. Though P. W.10 has claimed to have intimated to his head of office where he is working as Senior Supervisor, he has not produced any document to establish the fact of intimating about the alleged advancing of loan of Rs.15,000 to the accused in any of the month in 1986. A perusal of Ex.P-63 would disclose that the daughter of P.W.10 had informed that for investing money in Sundaram Finance, an Income Tax Clearance Certificate, attested by either a Bank Officer or a Gazetted Officer is required to be produced and that P.W.10 was of opinion that it was better to invest and obtain certificate from a Post Office, instead of Sundaram Finance. P.W.10 would also admit in his evidence that he had enquired with Sundaram Finance with regard to investing a sum of Rs.1,00,000 and informed his son to write a letter about the information furnished to his son, to the sister of his wife in connection with the deposit of Rs.1,00,000. P.W.10 would also admit that the abovesaid fact has been informed by him to the C.B.I. Officer, while he was examined in connection with this case. The abovesaid admission of P.W.10 and Ex.P-63 would disclose that the wife of the accused who is a house wife had enquired about investing of Rs.1,00,000 in Sundaram Finance in the month of April, 1986 and a reply was sent in the first week of May, 1986. A person who was inclined to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000 in Sundaram Finance in the month of April, 1986 need not have approached P.W.10 for a loan of Rs.15,000 or P.W.20, for a loan of Rs.10,000 during the said month or earlier. A person who was inclined to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000 in Sundaram Finance in the month of April, 1986 need not have approached P.W.10 for a loan of Rs.15,000 or P.W.20, for a loan of Rs.10,000 during the said month or earlier. If the said circumstances are taken into consideration, this Court is of the opinion that the trial court has rightly rejected the case of the accused that a sum of Rs.15,000 and Rs.10,000 were received by way of loan by the accused before the search was made in the house of the accused on 29.5.1986. 32. Admittedly, P.W.11 is the elder brother’s son of P.W.15 and P.Ws.11 and 15 are carrying on business in the name and style of M/s.Pahlaprai Sons and Chatramdoss Maheshkumar at No.43-B, I Agraharam, Salem. The evidence of P.Ws.11 and 15 would disclose that Kasinathan, D.W.3 Ramachandran and Narayanasamy, brothers of the accused Janakiraman, approached them at 11.00 a.m. on 30.5.1986 for a loan of rupees two to three lakhs to the accused for the purchase of a house at Coimbatore; that P.Ws.11 and 15 said that no amount was available to advance loan to that extent; that thereafter the accused requested for adjustment entries in the account books of P.Ws.11 and 15 as if loan to that extent was advanced on 24.5.1986 on the ground that the accused has already advanced a sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs for the purchase of the house and that P.Ws.11 and 15, with reluctance, agreed to make adjustment entries in the account books as if loan was advanced to an extent of Rs.2.50 lakhs on 24.5.1986, because of the close friendship that existed between P.W.11 and the brothers of the accused referred to above. It is also the case of P.Ws.11 and 15 that necessary entries were made in the Pronote Entry Book, Day Book and Cash Book maintained separately by P.Ws.11 and 15 as if 1.25 lakhs each was advanced as loan on 24.5.1986. It is also stated by P.Ws.11 and 15 that credit entry was made on 24.6.1986 itself in the Cash Book maintained by them separately, even though debit entry was made in the Day Book maintained by each of them on 24.5.1986 as a book adjustment. According to P.Ws.11 and 15, the documents relating to the abovesaid adjustment entries were given only on 1.6.1986 and not on 24.5.1986. According to P.Ws.11 and 15, the documents relating to the abovesaid adjustment entries were given only on 1.6.1986 and not on 24.5.1986. The abovesaid creation of records was made by P.Ws.11 and 15 only due to the friendship that P.W.11 had with the abovesaid Kasinathan, D.W.2 Ramachandran and Narayanasamy. Exs.P-64 and P-65 are the promissory notes executed by the accused and Narayanasamy in connection with the abovesaid transaction of Rs.1.25 lakhs each. Exs.P-66 and P-67 are guarantee letters singed by the abovesaid three brothers of the accused. Ex.P-68 is the confidential form executed by the abovesaid three brothers of the accused while Ex.P-69 is an equitable mortgage deed executed in connection with the house property owned by the accused in Door No. 10, Swarnapuri, Salem. With regard to the promissory note Ex.P-64, an entry Ex.P-71 was made in the Pronote Entry Book Ex.P-70 of the partnership firm of RWs.11 while entry Ex.P-73 was made in the Pronote Entry Book Ex.P-72 of P.W.15 with regard to the promissory note Ex.P-65. Ex.P-74 is the Day Book maintained by P.W.15 with effect from 1.4.1986 and Ex.P-75 is the Debit Entry made on 24.5.1986 for Rs.1,25,000 in the Day Book Ex.P-74 of P.W.15 in the name of the accused and his brother Narayanasamy. Ex.P-76 is the Day Book of the partnership firm of P.W.11 maintained from 1.4.1986. Ex.P-77 is the Debit Entry for Rs.1,25,000 made in Ex.P-76 of the partnership firm of P.W.11 in the name of the accused and Narayanasamy. Ex.P-78 is the Cash Book maintained by P.W.15. Ex.P-79 is the Credit Entry made for receipt of a sum of Rs.1,25,000 on 24.5.1986 from the accused and Narayanasamy in the Cash Book Ex.P-78. Ex.P-80 is the Cash Book maintained by the partnership firm of P.W.11. Ex.P-81 is the credit entry made for Rs.1,25,000 on 24.5.1986 from the accused and his brother Narayanasamy in the Cash Book Ex.P-80. The debit and credit entries made in the day book and the cash book maintained by P.Ws.11 and 15 separately would disclose that payment of Rs.1,25,000 by each money lender viz., P.W.11 and P.W.15 was made and the said amount was received by each of them on the same day viz., 24.5.1986. That would disclose that the entries were made by way of book adjustment on one and the same day. That would disclose that the entries were made by way of book adjustment on one and the same day. It would further go to show that no money whatever had gone out of the hands of P.Ws.11 and 15 on 24.5.1986 and the said entries would have been made only for account purposes to oblige the brothers of the accused, who are good friends of P.W.11. According to P.Ws.11 and 15, Ex.P-82 ownership certificate for the property of the accused and Ex.P-83 series, three electricity bills, were also produced on 1.6.1986. 33. P.W.16 Vadivelu, who was residing in the house of the accused in the month of May, 1986, would state in his evidence that D.W.3 Ramachandran met him and took from him three electric bills viz., Ex.P-83, on 31.5.1986. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.16 with regard to the handing over of the three electric bills to D.W.3 Ramachandran on 31.5.1986. If the evidence of P.W.16 with regard to handing over of Ex.P-83 series to D.W.3 Ramachandran on 31.5.1986 is taken into consideration, it is quite clear that the documents referred to above should have been given by the brothers of the accused only on 1.6.1986 as stated by P.Ws.11 and 15. It is also relevant to point out that the accused who had spoken with regard to Rs.500 which was paid as reward to him by the General Manager of Southern Railway had not immediately informed P.W.23 that he had received Rs.2.50 lakhs from P.Ws.11 and 15 as loan on 24.5.1986. It is also relevant to point out that the abovesaid fact has been mentioned to P.W.23 only when the accused was examined on 17.6.1986. P.W.9 Rodriques, who was present at the time of search of the house of the accused would also corroborate the evidence of P.W.23 that the accused had not informed about the alleged borrowing of Rs.2.5 lakhs from P.Ws.11 and 15 on the date of search i.e., on 29.5.1986. This circumstance will also be a point in favour of the prosecution. As rightly contended by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, there is no need for the accused to split the amount seized from the residence of the accused on 29.5.1986 in 10 containers referred to above by wrapping each bundle with white paper separately. This circumstance will also be a point in favour of the prosecution. As rightly contended by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, there is no need for the accused to split the amount seized from the residence of the accused on 29.5.1986 in 10 containers referred to above by wrapping each bundle with white paper separately. The accused has also not produced any documentary evidence at the time of examining him under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. or tried to prove through defence evidence that he had obtained permission from the head of the department for raising loan of Rs.2.5 lakhs from P.Ws.11 and 15 to purchase a house at Coimbatore. No particulars or document has also been produced with regard to the house at Coimbatore for purchase of which the alleged loan referred to above was borrowed by the accused. No agreement for sale between the accused and any third party owning the house at Coimbatore was also produced before court. D.W.3 who actively supports the case of his brother, the accused, by giving evidence would state that he did not know the rate of interest for the amount borrowed, even though he had singed along with other two brothers in the document created for the loans referred to above. D.W.3 was examined on 8.2.1991 and he would admit at the time of examination that the amount of Rs.2.50 lakhs allegedly borrowed from P.Ws.11 and 15 were not repaid with or without interest. It is an admitted fact that if interest is not paid periodically, compound interest will be collected for the alleged loan borrowed. If the amount is collected with compound interest, admittedly, it will come to Rs.4,00,000. P.Ws.11 and 15 are money lenders by profession. They would not have kept quiet without collecting the money of Rs.4,00,000, if really the sums of Rs.1.25 lakhs each had been advanced as loan by P.Ws.11 and 15 on 24.5.1986. It was suggested to D.W.3 that the documents Exs.P-64 to P-83 were created without payment of any amount by P.Ws.11 and 15 and that therefore the accused or his brothers had not repaid the loan. To that suggestion, D.W.3 has stated that he does not know. It was suggested to D.W.3 that the documents Exs.P-64 to P-83 were created without payment of any amount by P.Ws.11 and 15 and that therefore the accused or his brothers had not repaid the loan. To that suggestion, D.W.3 has stated that he does not know. If the said facts stated supra are taken into consideration, it is quite clear that the documents Exs.P-64 to P-83 should have been created by P.Ws.11 and 15 as if loans of Rs.1.25 lakhs each was advanced by P.Ws.11 and 15 to the accused and Narayanasamy only to oblige the brothers of the accused who are close friends of P.W.11. In the light of the documentary evidence referred to above and the circumstances stated supra, the evidence given by P.Ws.11 and 15 that the abovesaid documents Exs.P-64 to P-83 were created on 30.5.86 without paying any sum, much less, Rs.1.25 lakhs each by P.Ws.11 and 15 cannot be disbelieved. 34. The learned senior counsel Thiru N.T.Vanamamalai contended, relying on Hira Devi v. Official Assignee, Bombay, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 488, that no oral evidence is admissible against the documentary evidence with regard to the advancing of loan of Rs.1.25 lakhs each by P.Ws.11 and 15 respectively. Secs.91 and 92 of the Evidence Act prohibits admission of oral evidence to prove the contents of the documents by parties to the documents even though strangers to the document are outside the scope of Secs.91 and 92 of the said Act as per the decision referred to above. In this case, the prosecution has produced the documents Exs.P-64 to P-83 stating that the transaction is a sham transaction between parties to the said document. Controverting or varying the terms mentioned in the said documents by oral evidence, by the prosecution, as sham transaction cannot in any way be prevented, even according to the decision referred to above. 35. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has brought to the notice of this Court the decision reported in Smt.Gangabai v. Smt.Chhabubai, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 20, wherein it has been held as follows: "Sec.92 of the Evidence Act applies only when a party seeks to rely upon the document embodying the terms of the transaction. 35. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has brought to the notice of this Court the decision reported in Smt.Gangabai v. Smt.Chhabubai, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 20, wherein it has been held as follows: "Sec.92 of the Evidence Act applies only when a party seeks to rely upon the document embodying the terms of the transaction. In that event, the law declares that the nature and intent of the transaction must be gathered from the terms of the document itself and no evidence of any oral agreement or statement can be admitted as between the parties to such document for the purpose of contradicting or modifying its terms. The sub-section is not attracted when the case of a party is that the transaction recorded in the document was never intended to be acted upon at all between the parties and that the document is a sham. Such a question arises when the party asserts that there was a different transaction altogether and what is recorded in the document was intended to be of no consequence whatever. For that purpose oral evidence is admissible to show that the document executed was never intended to operate as an agreement but that some other agreement altogether, not recorded in the document was entered into between the parties." 36. Following the decision of the Madras High Court reported in A.I.R. 1938 Madras 320, the Gujarat High Court, in State Bank of India v. M/ s.Permco Saw Mill, Ahmedabad, A.I.R. 1984 Guj. 93, has held as follows: "Sec.91 read with Sec.92 of the Evidence Act was pressed into service. We have to bear in mind that Sec.91 qua a contract restricts oral evidence in respect of the terms of the contract. Can a consideration of a contract be said to be a term of the contract? Our categorical answer is "no"." Therefore, it is clear that consideration for a contract cannot be said to be a condition to a contract and oral evidence may be adduced as to what was the exact nature of the consideration. 37. In Yadav Ram v. Laxman Singh, A.I.R. 1978 All. 123, it has been held that Secs.91 and 92 of the Evidence Act, 1872 do not preclude a party from giving evidence to show that the written agreement executed was never intended to operate as a agreement but was brought into existence solely for creating the evidence. 38. 37. In Yadav Ram v. Laxman Singh, A.I.R. 1978 All. 123, it has been held that Secs.91 and 92 of the Evidence Act, 1872 do not preclude a party from giving evidence to show that the written agreement executed was never intended to operate as a agreement but was brought into existence solely for creating the evidence. 38. In Arumoorthy Chettiar v. Secondary Education Committee of Vallala Sangam of Vadugupatti, A.I.R. 1962 Mad. 360, it was held: "Where the contention of the plaintiff is that the actual contract itself was different and that for certain reasons it was made to appear in the document that it was a rectification deed. Sec.91 does not preclude the plaintiff from proving that the real contract was different from what is found in the deed". 39. It is relevant to point out that it is the specific case of P.Ws.11 and 15 that the documents Exs.P-64 to P-83 were created only for book adjustment at the request of the brothers of the accused referred to above and not for genuine transaction, that it had been known to them that there was a house search by C.B.I. Officials in the house of the accused on 29.5.1986 and seizure of cash to an extent of rupees three lakhs only subsequently; that they would not have agreed for such creation of records by way of book adjustment if they had known these facts earlier; that they came to know about the seizure of cash of rupees about three lakhs from the house of the accused on 29.5.1986, only after a raid was conducted in the business premises and houses of P.Ws.11 and 15, through P.W.23 and that therefore, the said transaction was not genuine transaction but only a creation of records. The fact that P.Ws.11 and 15 who are money lenders have not taken any steps to collect the amount to an extent of Rs.4 lakhs from the accused and his brother based on the documents till now will lend support to the stand taken by them as already cited supra. If the decisions referred to above on the side of the prosecution are taken into consideration, the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused that oral evidence cannot be permitted against the documentary evidence available on record as seen in Exs.P-64 to P-83 cannot be sustained. If the decisions referred to above on the side of the prosecution are taken into consideration, the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused that oral evidence cannot be permitted against the documentary evidence available on record as seen in Exs.P-64 to P-83 cannot be sustained. The decision relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the accused as mentioned above cannot also advance the case of the accused in any respect. 40. The evidence of P.W.14 Thiru K.Ramalingam, Income Tax Officer, Intelligence Wing, Madras, would disclose that statements were recorded from P.Ws.11 and 15 on 25.6.1986 in the office of the Income Tax at Salem. A perusal of Exs.P-91 and P-92, the statements of P.Ws.11 and 15 respectively would disclose that P.Ws.11 and 15 had stated what they have stated in the statement made before P.Ws.23 on 10.11.1986 and also before the trial court in this case. In other words, P.Ws.11 and 15 have stated in Exs.P-91 and P-92 that the documents Exs.P-64 to P-83 are created documents to oblige the brothers of the accused referred to above and the transaction is not genuine and that the brothers of the accused cheated them to create documents as mentioned above suppressing the raid conducted and cash of about Rs.3 lakhs seized in the house of the accused by P.W.23 on 29.5.1986. It is categorically stated that no amount was advanced as loan by P.Ws.11 and 15 on 24.5.1986 and hence no amount was collected from the accused and his brothers. 41. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused contended that the statements made by P.Ws.11 and 15 as seen in Exs.P-91 and P-92 before P.W.14 cannot be looked into by this Court since such statements were obtained by the prosecution to circumvent the prohibition contained in Sec.162, Crl.P.C. by the investigating officer and in support of such contention he relied on a decision reported in Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 2773. In that case, a letter was addressed by a Constable to the Station House Officer in the nature of narration of what he had been told by the accused. The said constable was not examined as a witness by the Investigating Officer, but the letter sent by the constable to the Station House Officer was sought to be used as evidence in the prosecution case. The said constable was not examined as a witness by the Investigating Officer, but the letter sent by the constable to the Station House Officer was sought to be used as evidence in the prosecution case. In such circumstance it was held that such a letter would constitute a statement for the purpose of Sec.162, Crl.P.C.; that the prohibition relating to the use of a statement made to a police officer during the course of an investigation cannot be set at naught by the police officer not himself recording the statement of a person but having it is the form of a communication addressed by the person concerned to the police officer and that if a statement made by a person to a police officer in the course of investigation is inadmissible, except for the purposes mentioned in Sec.162, the same would be true of a letter containing narration of facts addressed by a person to a police officer during the course of an investigation. It has also been held that it is not permissible to circumvent the prohibition contained in Sec.162 by the investigating officer obtaining a written statement of a person instead of the investigating officer himself recording the statement. Again it has been held that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. 42. In this case, Exs.P-64 to P-83 have been seized in a raid conducted in the business premises and residence of P.Ws.11 and 15 by P.W.23, on 19.6.1986 and 20.6.1986. The said documents were sent to the Director of Income-tax for investigation with regard to the offence under the Income-tax Act, who in turn, through the Deputy Director of Income Tax, directed P.W.14 to enquire into the matter in the light of Exs.P-64 to P-83 and to record statements from P.Ws.11 and 15. P.W.14 who is an Income-Tax Officer, Intelligence Wing, Madras, has got every right to examine anybody and to record statement under the Income-tax Act. He is not a police officer and any statement made before the Income-tax Officer cannot be treated on par with the statement made before a police officer. P.W.14 who is an Income-Tax Officer, Intelligence Wing, Madras, has got every right to examine anybody and to record statement under the Income-tax Act. He is not a police officer and any statement made before the Income-tax Officer cannot be treated on par with the statement made before a police officer. It is before such Income-tax Officer, P.Ws.11 and 15 had given the statements Exs.P-91 and P-92 while they were examined with reference to the documents seized from their business premises. P.W.23 came to know of the statements Exs.P-91 and P-92 given by P.Ws.11 and 15, while P.W.23 examined P.W.14 in connection with this case. It is relevant to point out that Exs.P-91 and P-92 were produced by P.W.14 before court and he had spoken about the statements made by P.Ws.11 and 15 before him on 25.6.1986. Therefore, the decision relied on by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused will have no application to the facts and circumstances of this case to hit the statements Exs.P-91 and P-92 under Sec.162 of C.P.C. The statements made by P.Ws.11 and 15 as seen in Exs.P-91 and P-92 respectively will also lend support to the statements made by them before P.W.23 and also before court in the course of trial. 43. The evidence of P.Ws.11 and 15 would disclose that P.W.11 on the advice of his advocate appeared before P.W.19 Thiru P.Pechimuthu, IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, to give confessional statement on 11.8.1986 and after following the procedure the confessional statement Ex.P-33 of P.W.11 was recorded on 12.8.1986 by the abovesaid learned Magistrate. It is also evident from the evidence of P.W.15 that he approached P.W.19 to give confessional statement on 8.9.1986 and he was duly warned with regard to the consequences of making such statement and after following the procedures, his confessional statement Ex.P-96 was recorded on 9.9.1986. The evidence of P.Ws.11 and 15 with regard to giving of confessional statements before P.W.19 is supported by the evidence of P.W.19. It is seen from the confessional statements Exs.P-93 and P-96 that Exs.P-64 to P-83 were created on 30.5.86 with false entries in the accounts maintained by P.Ws.11 and 15 to oblige the brothers of the accused as if they had advanced Rs.1.25 lakhs each on 24.5.1986 to the accused without knowing about the seizure of about rupees three lakhs in a search from the residence of the accused on 29.5.1986. It is also seen that the brothers of the accused approached P.Ws.11 and 15 on 30.5.1986 at 11.00 a.m. with a request to advance loan of Rs.2 to 3 lakhs or to make adjustment entries in the accounts on 24.5.1986 and the said created documents except adjustment entries account books were handed over to them only on 1.6.1986. 44. The learned senior counsel appearing for the accused relied on a decision reported in Jogendra Nahak and others v. State of Orissa and others, (1999)4 Crime 12 (S.C.), wherein it has been held that a witness cannot, on his own motion, approach a Magistrate with a request that his statement may be recorded under Sec.164, Crl.P.C. It has also been held that a Magistrate is not empowered to record the statement of a person unsponsored by investigating agency. According to the learned senior counsel, P.Ws.11 and 15 have approached P.W.19 to record their statements under Sec.164, Crl.P.C. and the statement recorded by the learned Magistrate as seen in Exs.P-93 and P-96 from P.Ws.11 and 15 respectively cannot be held as valid statements and used against the accused in this proceedings. 45. The learned Special Public Prosecutor contends contra relying on the same decision. He concedes that a witness unsponsored by the investigating agency cannot approach a Magistrate for recording statement under Sec.164, Crl.P.C. The statement as per the decision referred to above is a statement of a witness, but not that of an accused in a case. According to him, P.W.23 has registered a case against this accused only, in Cr.No.33 of 1986 on 28.5.1986 under Sec.5(i)(e) read with 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The offence against this accused was complete even on 29.5.1986. The learned Special Public Prosecutor also contends that P.Ws.11 and 15, Kasinathan,Narayanasamy and D.W.3 Ramachandran, the brothers of the accused and the accused Janakiraman fabricated evidence by creating records on 30.5.1986 as if loan was advanced on 24.5.1986 to the accused Janakiraman by P.Ws.11 and 15 at the instance of the three brothers of the accused referred to above on 30.5.1986 and, therefore, a case in Cr.No.41 of 1986 was registered by P.W.23 on 8.7.1986 against all the six accused referred to above and P.Ws.11 and 15 were arrested on 1.8.1986 even though they were released on their own bond later. The witnesses P.Ws.11 and 15 in this case, as accused Nos.5 and 6 in Cr.No.41 of 1986, approached P.W.19 and gave confessional statements under Sec.164, Crl.P.C., as seen in Exs.P-93 and P-96, on 11.8.1986 and on 8.9.1986 and 9.9.1986, respectively. Volunteering to give confessional statement before a Magistrate by the accused is not prohibited either under the Criminal Procedure Code or in the ruling cited above. Therefore, the learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that the ruling relied on by the learned senior counsel for the accused will have no application with regard to the statements made by P.Ws.11 and 15 as Accused Nos.5 and 6 in Cr.No.41 of 1986, under Secs.120(b), 468, 467, 477(a) and 193, I.P.C. If the circumstances stated supra by the learned Special Public Prosecutor are taken into consideration, this Court is of opinion that the decision relied on by the learned senior counsel for the accused will have no application to invalidate the statements given by P.Ws.11 and 15 as accused Nos.5 and 6 in Cr.No.41 of 1986 before P.W.19, as seen in Exs.P-93 and P-96. The confessional statements Exs.P-93 and P-96 made before a competent Magistrate and proved by examining the abovesaid Magistrate will also lend support to the case of the prosecution that the documents Exs.P-64 to P-83 were created by P.Ws.11 and 15 on 30.5.1986 in order to oblige the brothers of the accused, as if loan of Rs.1.25 lakhs each was advanced to the accused on 24.5.1986 by them without knowing the search conducted in the house of the accused leading to the seizure of rupees about three lakhs from the house of the accused in the course of the said search on 29.5.1986. Likewise, the statement made by D.W.3 that the father of the accused had paid Rs.35 to 40 thousand from not out of the sale of the property at Thiruvizhandur cannot be accepted in the light of the evidence given by D.W.3 during cross examination that he does not know anything with regard to the sale of the property situate at Thiruvizhandur by his father and also about the amount out of the sale, that he does not know whether his father had sold the property before retirement or thereafter, that he does not know whether his father was doing Homeopathy doctor profession by getting licence and that he does not know as to whether his father was having account in any of the banks. If the facts stated supra are taken into consideration, the attempt made by D.W.3 that he came to Salem only on the evening of 24.5.1986 and was not in Salem earlier and he was at Madras on 30.5.1986 and not at Salem relying on certain documents containing corrections or without the name of D.W.3 cannot in any way help the case of the accused. In view of the foregoing reasons, the case put forward by the accused that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs from P.Ws.11 and 15 on 24.5.1986 to purchase a house at Coimbatore cannot be accepted, as rightly rejected by the trial court. 46. The foregoing circumstances would lead to conclude that the accused has failed to satisfactorily account for the possession of assets including cash to an extent of Rs.4,13,802.16 during the check period from 1.5.1976 to 29.5.1986. Even if the case of the accused that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.2.50 lakhs from P.Ws.11 and 15 and Rs.15,000 and Rs.10,000 from P.Ws.10 and 20, respectively, is accepted for argument’s sake, the accused has to satisfactorily account for the disproportionate asset to an extent of Rs.1,38,802.16 as against the surplus income of Rs.1,92,852.01. This disproportionate asset will be about 65 to 70 per cent. Since the accused has failed to satisfactorily account for his assets of Rs.4,13,802.16 disproportionate to the known sources of his income, the trial court was right in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused under Sec.5(i)(e) read with 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 beyond all reasonable doubts. Since the accused has failed to satisfactorily account for his assets of Rs.4,13,802.16 disproportionate to the known sources of his income, the trial court was right in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused under Sec.5(i)(e) read with 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 beyond all reasonable doubts. The trial court was also right in convicting and sentencing the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. There is no reason to interfere with the said conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court apart from sustaining the order of trial court in confiscation of Rs.2,94,615. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed. The trial court is hereby directed to arrest the accused and to send him to jail to undergo unspent portion of the conviction and sentence.