JUDGMENT : B.P. Das, J. - Criminal Appeal No. 313 of 1999 has been filed by the Appellant - Sarat Rout, a former Minister of State of Orissa challenging the order passed by the Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No. 26 of 1991, convicting him u/s 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "P.C. Act") and sentencing him thereunder to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months for having committed the offence of criminal misconduct specified in Section 13(1)(e) of the Act by acquiring and possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. 2. Government Appeal No. 5 of 2000 has been filed by the State for enhancement of the sentence imposed in the very same order impugned in the above criminal appeal on the ground that the same is not adequate. Both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. On perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), it reveals that the trial Court found that the accused-appellant, who was a public servant, being a Minister of State of the Government of Orissa from 30.5.1985 to 7.12.1989, was in possession of assets worth Rs. 1,94,351.70 disproportionate to his known sources of income, during the check period, i.e., from 30.5.1985 to 16.5.1990. On a raid being conducted by the Anticorruption Department of the State at the ancestral house of the Appellant as well as the residence of his father during May, 1990, it was found that during the check period from 30.5.1985 to 16.5.1990, the total income of the Appellant from all sources including his past savings was Rs. 6,90,163.14 inclusive of the income of his wife, whereas the total expenditure of the Appellant and his family during that period was assessed by the Vigilance Authority at Rs. 2,40,718.22. The probable savings of the Appellant, therefore, should have been Rs. 4,49,444.92, according to the investigating agency. As against the probable savings, the total asset of the Appellant was assessed at Rs. 6,94,763.75. According to the prosecution, the Appellant was in possession of extra assets worth Rs. 2,45,318.83, which was disproportionate to his known sources of income during the check period. 4,49,444.92, according to the investigating agency. As against the probable savings, the total asset of the Appellant was assessed at Rs. 6,94,763.75. According to the prosecution, the Appellant was in possession of extra assets worth Rs. 2,45,318.83, which was disproportionate to his known sources of income during the check period. As the Appellant failed to explain the surplus assets, charge-sheet was submitted against him under the provisions of P.C. Act. 4. The defence plea was one of denial of the charge. The Appellant, during his examination u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, admitted that he was a Minister of State in Orissa from 30.5.1985 to 7.12.1989 and that his known sources of income during the relevant period was much more than what has been stated in the charge-sheet and the same was not taken into consideration by the Vigilance Authority. The further plea of the defence was that while calculating his income, the investigating agency has not taken into account the amounts received by him as house rent and the hand-loans availed form his relatives and friends, and the value of his assets has been exaggerated by the investigating agency. 5. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses. The defence examined 9 witnesses. Sixty number of documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution and seven number of documents by the defence. 6. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W. 20 was the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), who participated in the raid conducted at the residence of the father of the accused-appellant on 9.5.1990 and assisted in the seizure of movable assets. P.W. 16 was the Inspector of Police (Vigilance), Cuttack Division, who made confidential enquiry regarding the disproportionate assets of the Appellant and submitted his report to the Superintendent of Police, which was treated as an FIR. This witness was the Investigating Officer of the case at the initial stage. Subsequently, P.W. 21 took over the charge of investigation of the case from P.W. 16, and submitted the charge-sheet after completing the investigation. P.W. 13 was the Executive Engineer (Vigilance), who valued the building of the Appellant and P.W. 15 was the Inspector of Income Tax, Bhubaneswar, who produced copy of income tax return of the Appellant for the assessment year 1988-89. P.W. 13 was the Executive Engineer (Vigilance), who valued the building of the Appellant and P.W. 15 was the Inspector of Income Tax, Bhubaneswar, who produced copy of income tax return of the Appellant for the assessment year 1988-89. P.W. 19 was the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who gave an expert opinion regarding the expenditure, which would have been incurred by the Appellant during the check period, for maintenance of his vehicles (both four wheelers and two wheelers). P.W. 11 was the Asst. Director of Statistics, who basing on the National Sample Survey Report and the Urban Income and Savings Report, calculated the probable expenditure of the Appellant during the check period. The other witnesses have deposed regarding seizure as also income and expenditure of the accused-appellant. 7. The trial Court on evaluating the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the accused was a public servant being a Minister of State of Orissa during the period from 30.5.85 to 7.12.89; that as against the probable savings of Rs. 4,77,002.05, the accused was in possession of assets worth Rs. 6,71,353.75 and, therefore, the accused was in possession of assets worth Rs. 1,94,351.70, which was disproportionate to his known sources of income. Accordingly, the trial Court found the Appellant guilty of misconduct as specified in Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act and convicted him as indicated earlier. 8. Mr. Jayant Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant, taking me through the recorded evidence, has strenuously argued that the trial Court has gone wrong in finding the value of the disproportionate assets to be Rs. 1,94,351.70. According to him, though evidence was available on record, the trial Court has ignored the same and certain income of the Appellant has not been taken into account. 9. 1,94,351.70. According to him, though evidence was available on record, the trial Court has ignored the same and certain income of the Appellant has not been taken into account. 9. Before considering the merit of the case, it is profitable at this stage to indicate the ingredients of Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act, 1988, corresponding to Section 5(1)(e) of the P.C. Act, 1947, as enumerated by the Apex Court in the case of M. Krishna Reddy v. State, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad; ( AIR 1993 SC 313 ), namely: (1) the prosecution must establish that the accused is a public servant; (2) the nature and extent of the pecuniary resources or property which were found in his possession; (3) it must be proved as to what were his known sources of income, i.e. known to the prosecution; and (4) it must prove, quite objectively, that such resources or property found in possession of the accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income. Once the above ingredients are satisfactorily established the offence of criminal misconduct u/s 13(1)(e) of the Act is complete, unless the accused is able to account for such pecuniary resources or property. In other words, only after the prosecution has proved the required ingredients, the burden of satisfactorily accounting for the possession of such resources or property shifts to the accused. 10. There is no dispute that the accused-appellant was appointed as a Ministers of State of the Government of Orissa on 30.5.1985 and continued as such till 7.12.89 and as such he was a public servant during that period. 11. In the present case, according to the learned Counsel for the Appellant, there is no dispute regarding the income of the accused-appellant from the sources, namely, the salary of his wife being Rs. 35,729.55, the term loan from different Banks for construction of houses being Rs. 2,94,943.87, motor car advance of Rs. 50,000/-, sale proceeds of a Rajdoot motor cycle, a bullet motor cycle and a jeep being Rs. 58,000/- and bank balance prior to the check period being Rs. 32,321,45, the total being Rs. 4,70,994.87. That apart, the Appellant claimed that while he received a sum of Rs. 1,82,895.20 towards his salary, the prosecution has wrongly taken into account only a sum of Rs. 1,28,840.20. Apart from this income, though the Appellant received towards house rent a sum of Rs. 32,321,45, the total being Rs. 4,70,994.87. That apart, the Appellant claimed that while he received a sum of Rs. 1,82,895.20 towards his salary, the prosecution has wrongly taken into account only a sum of Rs. 1,28,840.20. Apart from this income, though the Appellant received towards house rent a sum of Rs. 1,29,892/-, the trial Court has taken into account only a sum of Rs. 1,07,392/-. According to the learned Counsel for the Appellant, the house rent received in respect of the house of the Appellant at Suryanagar from July 1987 to March 1988 amounting to Rs. 22,500/- has also not been taken into account. It is further stated that the interest earned from the Bank deposits was Rs. 7,249.43, but the trial Court has taken into account only a sum of Rs, 4,936.07 and the balance amount of Rs. 2,224.36 has been left out. Apart from that, before the check period the cash of Rs. 30,000/- available in the hands of the Appellant and the cash of Rs. 20,000/- in the hands of his wife-Sanjukta Rout, which she got from her father during her marriage, have not at all been taken into consideration by the trial Court. The building materials worth Rs. 90,225/- taken on credit from different suppliers and the loan incurred by Sanjukta Rout from her friends and relatives for construction of house being Rs. 1,13,000/- have not at all been considered by the trial Court. According to the learned Counsel for the Appellant, if the aforesaid amounts are taken into consideration, it cannot be said that the assets of the Appellant are disproportionate to his known sources of income. 12. Let me first examine the claim made by the Appellant so far as his salary is concerned. It is proved from Ext. 18, which is the salary statement of the accused, that the gross salary of the Appellant was Rs. 1,82,895.20, but he received only a sum of Rs. 1,28,840.20 as net salary income after deduction of the house rent and repayment of motor car advance and these deductions have not been shown as expenditure of the Appellant. 18, which is the salary statement of the accused, that the gross salary of the Appellant was Rs. 1,82,895.20, but he received only a sum of Rs. 1,28,840.20 as net salary income after deduction of the house rent and repayment of motor car advance and these deductions have not been shown as expenditure of the Appellant. Such deductions towards house rent and repayment of motor car advance having not been taken into account towards the expenditure of the Appellant, the trial Court has rightly not added the same to the income of the Appellant as the aforesaid amounts were never received by the Appellant but were adjusted against the salary of the Appellant. There is no error committed by the trial Court on this count by taking Rs. 1,28,840/- into account towards the salary of the Appellant. So far as the second aspect, i.e. the income of the accused from house rent, is concerned, the trial Court has not taken into account the house rent received from July, 1987 to March, 1988 amounting to a sum of Rs. 22,500/-. From Ext. 56, which is the Income Tax Return of the accused for the assessment year 1988-89, and the statement so attached to the said return, it appears that a total amount of Rs. 22,500/- was shown as house rent from July, 1987 to March 1988. The aforesaid income tax return was accepted by the Income Tax Authority, as would appear from the evidence of P.W. 15, the Inspector of Income Tax attached to the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Salary Circle, Bhubaneswar. That apart, P.W. 21, the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Special Squad, Cuttack, in his cross-examination has stated that towards house rent the Appellant had a cash of Rs. 22,500/- with him. This amount has not been taken into consideration by the trial Court. Thereafter, the aforesaid amount of Rs. 22,500/- received as house rent should have been shown towards the income of the Appellant. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has further drawn my attention to Ext. 25, which is the certified copy of the statement of S.B. A/c of the Appellant in the State Cooperative Bank, disclosing that an amount of Rs. 3865/- had accrued as interest upto 2.6.1990, which was after the check period. Ext. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has further drawn my attention to Ext. 25, which is the certified copy of the statement of S.B. A/c of the Appellant in the State Cooperative Bank, disclosing that an amount of Rs. 3865/- had accrued as interest upto 2.6.1990, which was after the check period. Ext. 26, which is the certified copy of the statement of accounts of the Appellant in the Orissa State Co-operative Bank similarly discloses that Rs. 233.10 had accrued as interest upto 30.6.90. Exts. 25 to 31 are the certified copies of the statements of the Savings Bank accounts maintained at different Banks indicating the interest received by the Appellant during the check period. The above statements of accounts show that the interest accrued on the amounts in the Savings Bank account of the Appellant has already been taken to be the income of the Appellant, i.e., Rs. 32,321.45 by the prosecution for which there is no necessity of again taking the interest component into account at the hands of the Appellant. The objection raised by the Appellant and his prayer to add the interest accrued towards his income is not sustainable. 13. Next claim of the Appellant is most vital. It is claimed that though cash of Rs. 30,000/- was available in the hands of the Appellant and Rs. 20,000/- in the hands of his wife, which she got from her father before check period, the same were not taken into account. In this regard my attention has been drawn to paragraph 19 of the judgment of the trial Court dealing with the aforesaid aspect wherein the trial Court disbelieved the stand of the defence. D.W. 4, Sanjukta Rout, the wife of the Appellant, has stated in para 5 of her evidence that before the check period, her husband had a cash balance of Rs. 30,000/- with him and out of the said amount, a portion was kept in the Bank and the balance cash was in hand. So far as the amount of Rs. 20,000/-, which was given by her father at the time of marriage, is concerned, she admitted that she had no documentary evidence in support of her claim. The trial Court has rightly rejected the plea. So far as the amount of Rs. 20,000/-, which was given by her father at the time of marriage, is concerned, she admitted that she had no documentary evidence in support of her claim. The trial Court has rightly rejected the plea. Mere disclosure before the Investigating Officer that they had cash in their hands was not enough to accept and believe the claim of the Appellant in the absence of any documentary evidence to that effect. The further case of the Appellant is that there was no basis for the trial Court to discard the evidence of D. Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 and to disbelieve the evidence regarding the handloans obtained by Smt. Sanjukta Rout for construction of house from her friends and relatives and procuring building materials on credit for such construction. This aspect was dealt with by the trial Court in paragraphs 19, 20 and 21 of the judgment. It is worthwhile to mention here that the Appellant was an income tax Assessee and his Income Tax returns were called for from the office of the Commissioner of income tax and the same were proved by P.W. 15. The trial Court disbelieved the same by observing that when the total income of D.W. 4, i.e., the wife of the Appellant, was a paltry sum of Rs. 7000/- per annum, it was highly improbable that creditors would go on advancing loans to such a person to the tune of Rs. 2,20,000/-. According to the trial Court, no creditor is supposed to advance such loan without considering the capacity of the loanee to repay the same. The trial Court has also discarded the evidence of D. Ws. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 holding that these witnesses were none else than the close friends and relatives of the Appellant. Looking into the evidence of the defence witnesses disclosing the fact of giving loans to the wife of the Appellant, the trial Court observed that it would be improbable that several members of one family would advance loans of such huge amounts separately without caring for the capacity of the loanee to repay the same. Looking into the evidence of the defence witnesses disclosing the fact of giving loans to the wife of the Appellant, the trial Court observed that it would be improbable that several members of one family would advance loans of such huge amounts separately without caring for the capacity of the loanee to repay the same. So far as the income tax return of the wife of the Appellant is concerned, the trial Court held that documents were created and income tax return was filed after detection of the case when the Appellant became conscious of his criminal liability. It was further observed by the trial Court that documents were created for his possible defence. The trial Court rejected the oral evidence of the defence witnesses terming the Income Tax returns to be manufactured for the purpose of the present case. 14. P.W. 21, the Investigating Officer, during his examination-in-chief, has categorically stated that on 14.5.1991 he examined one Debendranath Das of Acharya Vihar, who had supplied sand, metal and chips to Smt. Sanjukta Rout on credit during the year 1986-87 and also examined Rabindranath Das and his wife Smt. Dipti Patnaik, regarding giving of hand loans to Sanjukta Rout in 1986-87 and 1988 respectively. He has further stated that he examined one Hadibandhu Pradhan of Kapila Prasad about hand loan of Rs. 8,000/- given to Smt. Rout, as well as one Bhikari Charan Sahu of Rameswar Engineering Works, Bhubaneswar, about supply of shutters and grills on credit to Smt. Rout amounting to Rs. 7090/-. According to P.W. 21, he filed the charge sheet without taking into account the hand loans incurred from friends and relatives and the materials obtained on credit as the same could not be established during investigation. 15. P.W. 21 during his cross-examination has also stated that the accused and his wife had disclosed the hand loans availed by them from Susanta Kumar Nanda, Basanta Kumar Nanda, Antaryami Nanda, Hadibandhu Pradhan, Rabindra Kumar Das, Ghanashyam Das, Subrat Kumar Mohanty, Swarnaprava Rout, Dipti Patnaik, Dr. Purna Chandra Rout, Smt. Sipra Tripathy, Smt. Basanti Bal, Duryodhan Brahma and Itishree Nanda and barring 3 to 4 persons, he had examined all those persons. He has also stated that the above named persons had the capacity to advance loans, and the persons whom he had examined are genuine and they had advanced loans to the wife of the Appellant. He has also stated that the above named persons had the capacity to advance loans, and the persons whom he had examined are genuine and they had advanced loans to the wife of the Appellant. He has also stated that his investigation disclosed that the wife of the Appellant had a credit of materials worth Rs. 43,500/- from Hemanta Kumar Das, Rs. 38,000/- from D.N. Das, Rs. 12,500/- from Kanak Prava Mohanty, Rs. 7,090/- from Rameswar Fabrics and Rs. 12,235/- from Sudarsan Sahu. While disbelieving the plea of availing hand loans from friends and relatives and procurement of building materials on credit from different suppliers, the trial Court has also rejected the evidence of P.W. 21 to the extent it went against the prosecution. 16. The evidence of P.W. 21, though a part of it was relied upon by the trial Court and the rest was in support of the case of defence was rejected on the ground that P.W. 21, after his retirement, being not subject to any disciplinary action, virtually acted as a defence witness contradicting his own opinion in the case diary. According to the trial Court P.W. 21 is a highly unreliable witness having defied his oath. In this regard, it is worthwhile to have a look at Ext. 56, the income tax return of the accused for the assessment year 1988-89. This return, which was filed on 31.1.89, i.e., much prior to the raid, discloses that out of the total investment in the house of an amount of Rs. 5,65,700/-, the Appellant had invested a sum of Rs. 3,42,000/- and the balance Rs. 2,23,700/- had been invested by another co-sharer, i.e., his wife-Sanjukta Rout. The details of investment on house property were furnished before the Asst. commissioner of income tax, Circle-II, Bhubaneswar in pursuance of the notice issued by the income tax Authority u/s 139(2) of the income tax Act, 1961. So, by 31st January, 1989, the accused had already disclosed before the Income Tax Authority that he was having a share of 60% in the house property in which he had invested Rs. 3,42,000/- towards its construction and the balance 40%, i.e. Rs. 2,23,700/- had been invested by his wife-Sanjukta Rout, Ext. 5, which is the seizure list, discloses that the Income Tax assessment order in respect of Sarat Rout had been seized during the raid. 3,42,000/- towards its construction and the balance 40%, i.e. Rs. 2,23,700/- had been invested by his wife-Sanjukta Rout, Ext. 5, which is the seizure list, discloses that the Income Tax assessment order in respect of Sarat Rout had been seized during the raid. After disclosure by the accused regarding investment made by Sanjukta Rout in the said house before the Income Tax Authority, a notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Act requiring Sanjukta Rout to file her return for the assessment year 1988-89 and the said notice was issued on 31.1.1990 which was much prior to the raid, even though her assessment was completed in the year 1992. As the order of assessment in respect of Sanjukta for the assessment year 1988-89 was passed on 30.3.92, it cannot be said that the same was manufactured and created for the purpose of this case. The aforesaid return filed by Sanjukta Rout discloses the names of various creditors and her return was accepted by the Authority for which it cannot be said that for the first time the wife of the accused filed her income tax return disclosing her investment in the house property in question only to get rid of the Vigilance case. The Income Tax Return which has been exhibited during trial and went unchallenged by the prosecution, discloses that the income tax return of the accused was filed on 31.1.1989 indicating therein that an amount of Rs. 2,23,700/- had been invested by another co-sharer namely, Sanjukta Rout at 60: 40 proportion and the income tax return of the accused for the year 1988-89 was accepted and order of assessment was passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. Basing upon the disclosure of the property of the Appellant, notice u/s 148 of Income Tax Act was issued to Sanjukta Rout, who by then was not an Assessee, followed by filing of return by her. In the said return, she had disclosed the names of her creditors as well as the persons giving hand loans to her. 17. P.W. 2 Dolgobinda Bal, during his cross-examination has stated that the wife of the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs. 9,500/- from his wife in December, 1987 and also a sum of Rs. 9,500/- from his elder brother, Ghanashyam Bal, on 1.1.1988. 17. P.W. 2 Dolgobinda Bal, during his cross-examination has stated that the wife of the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs. 9,500/- from his wife in December, 1987 and also a sum of Rs. 9,500/- from his elder brother, Ghanashyam Bal, on 1.1.1988. Though this witness was examined on behalf of the prosecution and his statement on oath clearly supports the case of the Appellant, nothing has been done by the prosecution to declare this witness as hostile and put question in terms of Section 154 of the Evidence Act. Likewise, the I.O., P.W. 21, even though according to the trial Court, was not a trustworthy and reliable witness, the prosecution has relied upon his evidence and has neither declared him hostile nor cross-examined him, which recourse was open for the prosecution to take. The trial Court has fallen into an error by observing that this witness is not trust-worthy by discarding his evidence. The evidence of P.W. 21, in my opinion, not having been challenged and the witness not cross-examined by the prosecution, there is no reason to disbelieve him and reject his evidence. Likewise, the evidence of D.W. 1 shows that he had given an amount of Rs. 9,500/-. D.W. 3 has stated that she had given a hand loan of Rs. 9,000/- to the wife of the accused. D.W. 5 in his evidence stated that he supplied building materials for which he was to get Rs. 28,400/- from Sanjukta Rout (D.W. 4). During her cross-examination, D.W. 4, the wife of the accused, has also stated that she had disclosed this credit in her return of income. D.W. 6, Daitari Sahu, who is a carpenter, has stated that he was to get Rs. 12,235/- towards his wages. Nothing has been brought out during his cross-examination to disbelieve the statement of the aforesaid witness. D.W. 7, Hadibandhu Pradhan has stated that he had given a friendly loan of Rs. 9,000/- to the wife of the accused. Likewise, D.W. 8 Rabindra Nath Das, has stated that he had given a friendly loan of Rs. 5,000/- and his wife had also given Rs. 9,500/- to Sanjukta Rout. D.W. 9, Subrata Kumar Mohanty has also stated that he had given Rs, 9,500/- to Sanjukta Rout. All these amounts taken together comes to Rs. 1,14,635/-. Likewise, D.W. 8 Rabindra Nath Das, has stated that he had given a friendly loan of Rs. 5,000/- and his wife had also given Rs. 9,500/- to Sanjukta Rout. D.W. 9, Subrata Kumar Mohanty has also stated that he had given Rs, 9,500/- to Sanjukta Rout. All these amounts taken together comes to Rs. 1,14,635/-. In her income tax return, she had named 21 persons including the names of certain firms like Rameswar Fabrics and Tarini Hadware Stores disclosing the supply of materials to her on credit. During cross-examination, nothing was brought out by the prosecution to disbelieve the testimonies of the defence witnesses. The names of the defence witnesses, who had given hand loans and supplies materials on credit to the accused also find place in the return of income along with other creditors and the Income Tax Authorities, taking all those into consideration, accepted the same and completed the assessment. 18. The Apex Court in the case of M. Krishna Reddy v. State, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad (supra) held that the prosecution must prove as to what were the known source of income, i.e., known to the prosecution, and it must prove quite objectively that such resources or property found in prosecution of the accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income. 19. The prosecution in the present case was fully aware of the names of some of the persons, who had given hand loans and supplied materials on credit, and were examined by the Investigating Officer, i.e., P.W. 21. During the course of his cross-examination, P.W. 21 has categorically stated that he was aware of the fact that the investment made by the Appellant in the construction of the house was shown in his return of income to be Rs. 3,42,000/- and that of his wife Rs. 2,23,700/-. The names of the persons giving hand-loans and the persons who supplied materials on credit had been disclosed in the income tax return filed by Smt. Sanjukta Rout and some of them were also examined as defence witnesses. Added to this, the I.O. (P.W. 21) has stated in his cross-examination that he had not taken into account the hand loans availed by the wife of the Appellant, because she had not paid back the same to the creditors. Added to this, the I.O. (P.W. 21) has stated in his cross-examination that he had not taken into account the hand loans availed by the wife of the Appellant, because she had not paid back the same to the creditors. This statement of the IO, further strengthens the case of the Appellant that the fact of obtaining loans and availing building materials on credit was known to the prosecution before the charge-sheet was filed. Credence also is to be given to the return of the income filed by the Appellant and the order of assessment passed by the Income Tax Authority. So it cannot be said that the Appellant has filed the Income Tax return apprehending the raid. 20. Taking all the above facts into consideration, the hand-loans and credits taken by Sanjukta Rout cannot be overlooked. The plea of hand loans from the friends and relatives amounting to Rs. 1,31,000/-, building materials on credit to the tune of Rs. 90,225/- and house rent of Rs. 22,500/- is to be allowed. The aforesaid amounts taken together comes to Rs. 2,33,725/-. After addition of the aforesaid amount to the probable savings of the Appellant, the total comes to Rs. 7,10,727/-. From the evidence on record and the facts narrated above, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove the criminal liability of the Appellant u/s 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act, 1988. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No. 26 of 1991 convicting the Appellant u/s 13(2) of the P.C. Act and sentencing him thereunder is not maintainable in law and the same is, accordingly, set aside. 21. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The Government appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the Appellant passed by the Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No. 26 of 1991 are set aside. The Appellant is acquitted of the charge. Crl. Appeal allowed. amd Govt. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed