Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 488 (AP)

K. GOVERDHAN v. State Of A. P.

2001-04-26

VAMAN RAO

body2001
VAMAN RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Principal special Judge for SPE and ACB cases dated 30-12-1994 rendered in CC No. 1 of 1993, under which the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 5 (2) read with section 5 (1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption act (for short the Act ), and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. ( 2 ) IT may be stated that the appellant in the case has since died and that his legal representatives have been permitted to continue the appeal. ( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution as brought out during the trial may be stated briefly as follows: the appellant is a public servant, who has been working as a Sub-Registrar in the registration Department during the period from 8-11-1960 to 5-8-1984. It is alleged that during this period, he acquired assets which were disproportionate to his known sources of income to a tune of rs. 4,72,252/ -. The Inspector, ACB, who has been examined as PW37, conducted preliminary enquiry against the appellant in the month of July, 1984 and received information that the appellant was in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. Thereafter pw37 applied to the Director, ACB, to grant permission to register FIR against the appellant. Having received such permission, FIR was registered under ex. P98. The premises of the appellant at vijayawada was searched on 5-8-1984 in the presence of mediators including PW28 and some documents under Ex. P61 have been seized. The appellant was not present at the time of search while his family members were present. Ex. P62 is the inventory of the articles found in the house of appellant. On 7-8-1984 PW37 along with PW28 and others went to Vijaya bank at Vijaya Nagar Colony, opened the locker of the appellant in their presence and prepared inventory of articles under Ex. P63. At the same time at about 11-45 a. m. the appellant produced some other documents before PW37, which were seized under Ex. P64. On 7-8-1984 PW37 along with PW28 and others went to Vijaya bank at Vijaya Nagar Colony, opened the locker of the appellant in their presence and prepared inventory of articles under Ex. P63. At the same time at about 11-45 a. m. the appellant produced some other documents before PW37, which were seized under Ex. P64. On the same day at about 12-24 hours in the presence of DW5, the son-in-law of the appellant, PW37 searched the locker of DW5 and took inventory of articles under Ex. P65. Thereafter, the case was handed over for further investigation to pw43. PW43 addressed letters to various banks and collected the particulars of the bank accounts of the appellant. The check period for the purpose of reckoning is proportionate assets was taken from 1-1960 to 5-8-1984. ( 4 ) THE assets of the appellant were categorised under 28 items valued totally in a sum of Rs. 5,58,000/ -. The income derived by the appellant under seven different items including his salary was estimated at Rs. 3,57,303-02 Ps. The expenditure incurred by the appellant during the period under 18 items has been worked out to Rs. 2,71,554-53 Ps. On this basis, the disproportionate assets held by the appellant have been worked out to rs. 4,72,252/ -. After obtaining the sanction for prosecution under the orders Ex. P67 from the Government, PW43 filed the charge- sheet. ( 5 ) ON behalf of prosecution 43 witnesses have been examined and Exs. Pl to P120 have been marked. Six witnesses have been examined on behalf of the appellant and Exs. Dl to D5 have been marked. On this evidence, the learned special Judge found that the appellant had disproportionate assets to an extent of rs. 4,72,252/- and accordingly recorded conviction and imposed sentence as stated above. ( 6 ) THE prosecution has adduced evidence as to the possession of 28 assets by the appellant. Out of them, items 1, 2, 4, 5, 16 and 19 appear to be important. 4,72,252/- and accordingly recorded conviction and imposed sentence as stated above. ( 6 ) THE prosecution has adduced evidence as to the possession of 28 assets by the appellant. Out of them, items 1, 2, 4, 5, 16 and 19 appear to be important. Out of them items 1 and 2 are houses, 4 and 5 are agricultural lands, 16 is the cash balance in the SB Account in the name of Sudhakar, son-in-law of the appellant at Bank of baroda, and item No. 19 is the cash balance in the account of M/s. Rama Krishna enterprises in Bank of Baroda, of which the son-in-law and the mother of appellant- rajyalakshmi are said to be partners. From the point of value, these are the important assets, while the amount covered by the other assets is insignificant. It may be pointed out that all these assets do not stand in the name of the appellant. The Special judge proceeded on the assumption that these assets really belong to the appellant though they stand benami in the name of various persons. These assets may now be taken up for consideration. ( 7 ) ITEM No. 1 is House No. 10-3-307/b situated at Humayun Nagar, standing in the name of Narasingamma, mother-in-law of the appellant. The site in respect of this house was admittedly purchased from smt. Pratima Devi for Rs. 16,600/- under a registered sale deed. It is also not in dispute that municipal permission was obtained for construction of the said house in the name of the said Narasingamma. The value of this assets has been worked out at rs. 1,15,600/- by PW24, the Deputy Director (Engineering), ACB, Hyderabad. The second item relates to another house bearing no. 10-3-291/1 K, situated at Humayun nagar, Hyderabad in the name of rajyalakshmi, mother of appellant. It has been valued at Rs. 1,64,000/- by PW24. Item no. 5 is agricultural land to an extent of ac. 3-05 cents, which stands in the name of the mother of the appellant. It has been valued at Rs. 15,750/- by PW24. Item No. 4 is another agricultural land measuring ac. 3. 38 Cents acquired in the joint names of Smt. A Nirmala, wife of PW10, Harnatha reddy, and DW5, Sudhakar son-in-law of the appellant under Ex. P31 sale deed. 3-05 cents, which stands in the name of the mother of the appellant. It has been valued at Rs. 15,750/- by PW24. Item No. 4 is another agricultural land measuring ac. 3. 38 Cents acquired in the joint names of Smt. A Nirmala, wife of PW10, Harnatha reddy, and DW5, Sudhakar son-in-law of the appellant under Ex. P31 sale deed. However, there appears to be a mistake in this regard in the discussion of the learned judge inasmuch as it is mentioned at page 20 in para-16 of the judgment of the learned Judge that this asset stands in the joint names of A. Narasingamma and p. Sudhakar. At a later stage the learned judge mentions the name of A. Nirmala as one of the joint owners. One of the Vendors under Ex. P31 has been examined as PW7. Its value has been assessed by PW24 at rs. 10,000/ -. Item No. 6 is a fiat car said to have been purchased by M/s. Rama Krishna enterprises, Hyderabad. Its value has been assessed by PW24 at Rs. 20,000/ -. The next important item from the point of value is item No. 16. This relates to the balance available in S. B. Account No. 3422 of Bank of Baroda, Khairatabad Branch, standing in the name of DW5, son-in-law of the appellant. A balance of Rs. 40,172-80 Ps. appears to the credit of the said account. The other important item is Item No. 19, i. e. , cash credit account of M/s. Rama Krishna enterprises in Bank of Baroda. A balance of Rs. 20,925-40 Ps. , appears to the credit of the said account. ( 8 ) THE discussion of the learned Judge in regard to Item No. l would disclose that the learned Judge proceeded on the assumption that the mother-in-law of the appellant Narasingamma had no independent source of income. Along with this, the learned Judge took into consideration the circumstance that the appellant, it would appear, had issued various cheques from his own account in favour of his son-in-law dw5. In regard to item No. 2, the learned judge proceeded on the assumption that smt. Rajyalakshmi, mother of the appellant, had also no independent source of income and that the appellant issued a cheque for Rs. 30,000/- on 1-3-1982 in favour of his mother prior to the purchase of this house. In regard to item No. 2, the learned judge proceeded on the assumption that smt. Rajyalakshmi, mother of the appellant, had also no independent source of income and that the appellant issued a cheque for Rs. 30,000/- on 1-3-1982 in favour of his mother prior to the purchase of this house. ( 9 ) IN regard to Item No. 4, which stands in the name of the mother of the appellant, the learned Judge, as stated above, proceeded on the assumption that she had no independent source of income. In respect of other person who is jointly shown as the owner of this land, viz. , sudhakar, son-in-law of the appellant, the learned Judge similarly proceeded on the assumption that he had no independent source of income and that he was not in a position to raise resources for investing for acquisition of this asset. ( 10 ) IN regard to Item No. 5, as stated above, the learned Judge proceeded on the wrong assumption that it stands on the names of Smt. A. Narasingamma and P. Sudhakar. In fact, it stands in the names of A. Nirmala, wife of PW10, and DW5 P. Sudhakar. The learned Judge proceeded on the assumption that P. Sudhakar has no independent source of income and that there are strong grounds to believe that this property was purchased by Sudhakar, DW5, benami from the amount drawn from the account of the appellant. ( 11 ) IN regard to item No. 6, the reasoning of the learned Judge was that p. Sudhakar and K. Rajyalakshmi had no independent source of income. For this item also, relying on a bunch of cheques marked as Exs. P103 and 104, the learned judge observed that money flowed from the appellant to Sudhakar and Rajyalakshmi under various cheques, which according to him, goes to indicate that M/s. Rama krishna Enterprises was floated from the funds and advances by the appellant. He disbelieves Exs. P105 to P109 the income tax returns in respect of this Firm as of no significance. In regard to bank accounts, which were referred to above, they are admittedly in the name of Sudhakar, rajyalakshmi and M/s. Rama Krishna enterprises respectively. He disbelieves Exs. P105 to P109 the income tax returns in respect of this Firm as of no significance. In regard to bank accounts, which were referred to above, they are admittedly in the name of Sudhakar, rajyalakshmi and M/s. Rama Krishna enterprises respectively. ( 12 ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the entire case of the prosecution and the finding of the learned Special Judge proceed on the assumption that either Rajyalakshmi, mother of the appellant, or Sudhakar, son-in-law of the appellant, or Narasingamma, mother-in- law of the appellant, had no independent source of income of their own. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that this assumption is unwarranted and is contrary to the evidence on record. The learned Counsel points out that there is tangible evidence on record to show that Rajyalakshmi, mother of the appellant, inherited substantial amount of property from her husband. He refers to ex. P12, the Estate Duty Receipt, seized from the house of the appellant. It is pointed out that this clearly establishes that a sum of rs. 68,457/- was inherited by the mother of the appellant. It is submitted that with this amount Rajyalakshmi could have purchased the ground floor of the house in Item No. 2 under Ex. P46 sale deed. It is not in dispute that the upstairs portion was constructed by dw5. In regard to Sudhakar, DW5, the learned Counsel points out that there is evidence on record to show that he earned income from various sources. He earned certain amount from his business as stamp vendor, as evident from Ex. P 118 letter collected by PW43, the Investigating Officer from the Inspector-General of Registration, which shows that DW5 earned a sum of rs. 9,000/- and odd as commission on sale of stamps. It is then submitted that the income tax returns under Exs. P105 to 108 do show that the Firm M/s. Rama Krishna enterprises earned reasonable amount of profits. For instance, Ex. P 108, income tax returns for the year 1985-86, shows that the firm earned a profit of Rs. 13,770/-, which was included in the return. The acquisition of first floor of Item No. 2 was shown in the income tax returns. For instance, Ex. P 108, income tax returns for the year 1985-86, shows that the firm earned a profit of Rs. 13,770/-, which was included in the return. The acquisition of first floor of Item No. 2 was shown in the income tax returns. The learned Counsel for the appellant points out that the burden of proof that a particular transaction is benami would lie on the person who sets up such a plea. In respect of this contention, he relies upon a judgment of the Supreme court in the case of Krishnanand v. State of M. P. , AIR 1977 SC 796 . In this case, the supreme Court has clearly held that the burden of showing that a particular transaction is benami and the ostensible 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. The learned Additional Public prosecutor, however, contends that in this case presumption under Section 5 (3) of the prevention OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 is available for prosecution and that the burden lies on the appellant to show that the assets were not disproportionate to the known source of his income. The learned Counsel for the appellant, however, contends that the question of the appellant explaining that the assets are not disproportionate to his known sources of income would arise when it is proved that the assets in question belong to him. ( 13 ) IN this case, the Investigating Officer, PW43, categorically admitted that there is absolutely no direct evidence to show that the assets mentioned above were held benami by those in whose name they stand. ( 14 ) THUS, in this case, the learned Special Judge seems to have relied on only two circumstances for holding that the assets in question are held by the ostensible owners benami for the accused officer. Firstly, the alleged absence of any known source of income on the part of those ostensible owners and secondly issuing of cheques by the accused officer on various occasions in favour of DW5, who is his son-in-law. Firstly, the alleged absence of any known source of income on the part of those ostensible owners and secondly issuing of cheques by the accused officer on various occasions in favour of DW5, who is his son-in-law. It is pertinent to mention here that even assuming that the ostensible owners in question do not have any known sources of income, this in itself cannot be a conclusive circumstance for holding that the property held by them was benami on behalf of accused officer. ( 15 ) A cheque for Rs. 30,000/- has been issued By the accused officer in favour of his mother. Two facts are significant in respect of this cheque. Firstly, it was issued on the account of accused officer himself, which has been thoroughly scrutinized by the Investigating Officer. It is obvious that the funds covered by this cheque are from the income, which has been scrutinised and examined by the investigating agency. Had this amount been advanced for the clandestine purpose of acquiring assets benami on behalf of the accused, a cheque from his own account would not have been issued. The very fact that the cheque was issued from his own account would show that there was no attempt to hide anything. Secondly, the cheque was issued in the name of Smt. Rajyalakshmi who was a partner in the firm M/s Ramakrishna enterprises. This amount was shown in the income tax returns of Ramakrishna enterprises. This may at the worst be construed as either a loan by the accused officer or a gift. In either case, this transaction in itself would not in any way help the prosecution in discharging the burden lying on them to show the acquisition of property, namely, Item No. 2 was benami for the benefit of the accused officer. Further, this amount of Rs. 30,000/- constitutes only a fraction of the total value of Rs. 1,64,000/- involved in the acquisition of this asset. ( 16 ) IT is significant to note, as admitted by PW43, the Investigating Officer, there is not a speck of evidence to show that the accused was in any way involved in the process of acquisition of this asset. In the absence of any such evidence, the mere fact that Smt. Rajyalakshmi had no source of income of her own and coupled with this the issue of cheque by the accused for a sum of Rs. In the absence of any such evidence, the mere fact that Smt. Rajyalakshmi had no source of income of her own and coupled with this the issue of cheque by the accused for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- in her favour could not be considered sufficient for discharging the burden of showing that the transaction was benami. Further, the assumption that the said Rajyalakshmi had no resources of her own is also not borne out by the record. As mentioned earlier, there is positive evidence that she inherited a sum of rs. 68,457/- from her husband. There is unimpeachable evidence in this regard by way of payment of estate duty under Ex. P112 in respect of this. ( 17 ) FURTHER, there is a documentary evidence by way of income tax returns under Exs. P105 to 108 that the said Smt. Rajyalakshmi was a partner in the firm m/s. Ramakrishna Enterprises which did earn some profits in the relevant years and the share of Smt. Rajyalakshmi in those profits were shown as 60% as is evident from ex. P108. There is no evidence from which it can be inferred that the entire capital of ramakrishna Enterprises could be traceable to the accused officer. On the other hand, there is material on record to show, as stated above that Smt. Rajyalakshmi had her own resources which she inherited from her husband and the said P. Sudhakar, dw5, has also income of his own by way of various business activities he was engaged in. In the face of this evidence, the finding of the learned Special Judge that this asset, namely, the house in the name of Rajyalakshmi was benami for accused officer cannot be sustained. ( 18 ) IN regard to Item No. 1, namely, the house purchased in the name of narsingamma, there is evidence of her son pw12 that their family was possessed of sufficient extent of land, namely, 10 acres of wet land and 25 acres of dry land which yielded substantial income and the evidence of PW43, the Investigating Officer, discloses that he obtained a letter from the mandal Revenue Officer, Ex. P55, which was marked through PW23, that the lands yielded substantial income of Rs. 32,500/- to Rs. 58,000/- per year. P55, which was marked through PW23, that the lands yielded substantial income of Rs. 32,500/- to Rs. 58,000/- per year. ( 19 ) THE contention of the learned Standing Counsel for Anti-Corruption bureau, Sri Pedda Babu is that PW12 himself admitted that during partition among sons, no share was allotted to their mother under the partition deed. The contention is that in the absence of any share, there was no other source from which the said narsingamma could have derived any income. The learned Counsel for the appellant, however, contends that formal partition of land under a partition deed is not really significant considering the relationship between the parties. There is a specific evidence of PW12 that after the said formal partition, it was the eldest brother and their mother who were looking after those properties belonging to all the brothers inasmuch as other brothers were away from the place as they were engaged in other avocations. ( 20 ) EXCEPT PW12 who says that he received some share from the income from the properties, there is no material to show that all the brothers who have been allotted shares in the said property received income from that property. Considering the circumstances and the practice in the rural areas, there is nothing surprising if the mother who managed the properties held the income derived from those properties. At any rate, it is not a case where it could be said that the said Narsingamma had absolutely no access to any source of income. ( 21 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant points out that there is material to show that the said Narsingamma had access to some income. ( 22 ) THERE is another aspect of the matter which deserves to be mentioned. Mere fact that the ostensible owner had no source of income in itself would not lead to any inference that the property in question was purchased with the income of a particular person. The absence of any source of income to the ostensible owner would merely indicate that the property might have been acquired with the income flowing from some one else. As to who that some one else is a matter of evidence and proof. That circumstance cannot lead to an inference that the property in question was acquired with the income from the accused. As to who that some one else is a matter of evidence and proof. That circumstance cannot lead to an inference that the property in question was acquired with the income from the accused. As pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant, that one of the sons of Narsingamma who has been examined as PW12 was himself a Government employee. No material has been placed before the Court to show that he might not have been interested in having the property acquired benami in the name of his mother. Thus, as stated above, it is a matter of evidence and not a matter of mere inference though the evidence may not be direct and may consist of circumstantial evidence. In this case, the Investigating Officer PW43 has candidly admitted that there is no material to show that the investments for the purchase of properties alleged to be benami were in any way traceable to the income of the accused. No circumstantial evidence of a definitive character has been placed on record to lead to an inference that it was the income of the accused which financed purchase of alleged benami properties. ( 23 ) THE only other circumstance relied on by the learned Special Judge for his inference that the property was held benami for accused officer is that the document of title in respect of this asset was recovered from the possession of the accused officer. The learned Counsel for the appellant however counters this. It is pointed out that in the first raid, this document was not recovered from the house of the accused. It was said to have been recovered in the second search, which was conducted after 8 days of the first search. DW5 has categorically deposed that the Investigating Officer, PW43, had directed him under threats to produce the document in respect of title before him and that he went to his village and brought the document and produced before PW43. It may be mentioned that if the document was in possession of the accused, there is no reason why it could not have been recovered during the first search itself. No explanation has been offered by the investigating Officer as to under what circumstances this lapse occurred. ( 24 ) CONSIDERING the improbability, the evidence of DW5 that it was produced by him on the directions of PW43, appears probable. No explanation has been offered by the investigating Officer as to under what circumstances this lapse occurred. ( 24 ) CONSIDERING the improbability, the evidence of DW5 that it was produced by him on the directions of PW43, appears probable. At any rate, if two views in respect of a version are possible, the view favourable to the accused has to be accepted. Thus, the grounds on which the learned special Judge inferred that the house property, Item No. 1, was acquired in the name of Narasingamma only benami for the benefit of the accused cannot be considered sound. The evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution falls far short of the requirement to discharge the burden lying on them to show that the transaction in question were benami. ( 25 ) WHAT applies in respect of these two assets equally applies in respect of acquisition of agricultural properties under item Nos. 4 and 5. ( 26 ) ITEM No. 6 car is avowedly acquired in the name of the firm M/s. Ramakrishna enterprises. PW43 admits that it was purchased in the name of Ramakrishna enterprises. The income tax returns, ex. P107, filed by Ramakrishna Enterprises shows the car as an asset of the firm and even depreciation on it has been claimed. ( 27 ) AS stated above, the Investigating Officer, PW43, has candidly admitted as follows: "there is no direct evidence available to show that the accused purchased the immovable or movable properties with his amounts benami in the names of sudhakar, Rajyalakshmi and Smt. Narsingamma. The accounts of M/s. Ramakrishna Enterprises show that they raised loan and it was reflected in IT returns of the firm". ( 28 ) IN the absence of any direct evidence, the mere assertion that these three individuals had no sources of income which has not been borne out by record and the fact that some cheques were issued by the accused in favour of smt. Rajyalakshmi and Sudhakar, DW5, do not lead to any inference that these properties are benami for the benefit of the accused officer. ( 29 ) WHAT applies to these assets equally applies to item Nos. 16 and 17, namely, bank balances in the name of DW5 and Ramakrishna Enterprises respectively. Rajyalakshmi and Sudhakar, DW5, do not lead to any inference that these properties are benami for the benefit of the accused officer. ( 29 ) WHAT applies to these assets equally applies to item Nos. 16 and 17, namely, bank balances in the name of DW5 and Ramakrishna Enterprises respectively. The same applies to the acquisition of scooter AAU 3902 in the name of Sudhakar and another scooter ADL 4544 acquired in the name of Ramakrishna Enterprises. ( 30 ) THUS, the conclusions of the learned Special Judge that all these items of property, which stand in the name of either rajyalakshmi or Sudhakar or Narsingamma, are benami for the benefit of the accused officer cannot be sustained. The total value of the assets under item Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 16 and 19 comes to Rs. 3,95,948/ -. If this is deleted from the assets of the accused officer, the value of the assets comes down to rs. 1,62,052/ -. ( 31 ) IT is then pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the ascertainment of the income of the accused officer by the learned Special Judge is entirely erroneous. Firstly, in regard to salary income, it is pointed that there is a blatant omission to reckon the salaries pertaining to various periods. PW14, the sub-Registrar, Devarakonda, who produced the statement of salary particulars Ex. P44 admits that salary particulars furnished by him under Ex. P44 do not include the salary for the month of May and June, 1968 and also from 21-1-1968 to 21-5-1968. Even the Investigating Officer seems to have admitted that there is an omission to include the salary for the period from 8-11-1960 to 22-3-1962. PW13 furnished the salary particulars under Ex. P43. PW13 in his crossexamination admitted that he has omitted to show the salary particulars from november, 1962 to July, 1963 and also from April, 1974 to August, 1975. The total net salary received by the accused officer, for the omitted period has been calculated at Rs. 11,272/ -. Thus, the salary income of the accused officer, which has been ascertained at Rs. 1,88,764/- has to be raised to Rs. 2,00,036/ -. ( 32 ) THERE appears to be another glaring omission to take into account the income from Item No. 2, namely, sale proceeds derived from the sale of plots at gaddiannaram. 11,272/ -. Thus, the salary income of the accused officer, which has been ascertained at Rs. 1,88,764/- has to be raised to Rs. 2,00,036/ -. ( 32 ) THERE appears to be another glaring omission to take into account the income from Item No. 2, namely, sale proceeds derived from the sale of plots at gaddiannaram. The learned Special Judge has given credit under this head to an extent of Rs. 20,000/- being sale price for the plot sold to PW7 under registered sale deed ex. P50. However, there is unimpeachable documentary evidence supported by the evidence of purchasers of these plots that the total income derived by the accused officer under this head was Rs. 50,000/ -. PW38 who has otherwise given evidence against the accused officer has admitted that he purchased the house plot for rs. 15,000/ -. Ex. D3 appears to be relevant sale deed. DW2 had deposed that he purchased a plot for Rs. 15,000/- under Ex. D4 which is a registered sale deed. In fact, pw43, in his cross-examination admits as follows: "i have obtained sale deed copy in respect of only one plot which was sold by accused to Bhanu Prakash, the brother-in-law of the accused for Rs. 15,000-00. " ( 33 ) HE admits that Ex. D3 is the registration extract of sale deed dated 20-7-1981 registered in favour of P. Suryanarayana. It is also in his evidence that Ex. D4 is the registration extract of sale deed dated 20-7-1981 bearing document no. 4196 of 1981 executed by the accused in favour of D. Niranjan. In fact, he states that he has cited the above two vendees as witnesses for the purpose of proving these sales but the other witnesses were given up. In the light of this, the total income derived from the sale of plot has to be fixed at Rs. 50,000/- i. e. , 30,000/- more than the one ascertained by the learned special Judge. In view of this, the total income of the accused officer has to be raised by Rs. 41,272/ -. Thus, the total income of the accused would come to rs. 3,98,575/ -. ( 34 ) EVEN if the finding of the learned Special Judge as to the total expenditure of the accused is accepted at Rs. 2,71,555/-, the likely savings of the accused would come to Rs. 1,27,020/- (Rs. 3,98,575-00- rs. 2,71,555-00 ). 41,272/ -. Thus, the total income of the accused would come to rs. 3,98,575/ -. ( 34 ) EVEN if the finding of the learned Special Judge as to the total expenditure of the accused is accepted at Rs. 2,71,555/-, the likely savings of the accused would come to Rs. 1,27,020/- (Rs. 3,98,575-00- rs. 2,71,555-00 ). After deducting the value of the assets of Item Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 16 and 19 i. e. , Rs. 3,95,948/-, the total value of assets would come to Rs. 1,62,052/ -. Thus, it would be seen that the value of the assets of the accused officer is higher than the likely savings of the accused by only rs. 35,032/-, which is less than 10% of the total income of the accused which cannot be considered disproportionate as held by the supreme Court in the case of Krishnanand (supra ). ( 35 ) IN the result, it has to be held that the accused was not found to be in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. ( 36 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed. The findings of the learned Special Judge that the accused held assets disproportionate to the known sources of his income and the consequent conviction of the accused and sentence are set aside. The accused is acquitted of the charge under Section 5 (1) (e) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of corruption Act. The fine amount, if paid, shall be refunded to the legal heirs of the appellant.