JUDGMENT The appellant was the accused officer (hereinafter referred to as "the accused"). He died during the pendency of the appeal. His legal heirs, i.e., his wife, son and daughter, filed an application to permit them to continue the 'appeal and the same was allowed by this Court by an order dated 31-8-1998 and thus the appeal is being prosecuted by the legal heirs of the deceased accused. 2. By judgment dated 17-12-1997, the Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad, convicted the accused for the offence under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short the' Act') and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. The learned Judge also ordered for confiscation of the assets of the accused under items 1 to 12 as shown in the annexure-I, to the State. 3. The charge against the accused is that while he was working as a Motor Vehicles Inspector in the Transport Department, during the check period from 19-10-1976 to 28-9-1986, he acquired assets which are disproportionate to his known sources of income to a tune of Rs.8,11,783-33 ps. in his name and in the name of his dependents, i.e., his wife, daughter and son, for which he could not satisfactorily account for and thus he is liable or an offence punishable under Section 5(2) read with Sec. 5(1) (e) of the Act. 4. The following assets are shown as belonging to the accused acquired during the check period: ITEM DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSET VALUE OF NO. THE ASSET (in Rs.) 1. Construction of a house in D.No. 41-20-2/21 in Krishnalanka, Vijayawada in the name of his son Srinivasa Kumar. 1/59/000/- 2. Purchase of house from LIC of India in Bhimnagar, Hyderabad in the name of his wife Smt. A Santakumari in 1980 and construction of first floor in 1985. 1/45/911/- 3. Purchase of a house from AP. Housing Board in LIC scheme at Hyderabad in 1974 in the name of AO. 25/658/- 4. Purchase of Ac. 7-83 cents of wet land in the name of Smt. A Santakumari in Machilipatnam in 1975. 24/800/- 5. Purchase of Ac. 1.14 cents of wet land in the name of AO/s son Srinivasa Kumar at Uppaluru in 1983. 15/960/- 6. Purchase of Ac. 2.10 cents of wet land in the name of A. Santakumari at Uppaluru in 1983. 7-83 cents of wet land in the name of Smt. A Santakumari in Machilipatnam in 1975. 24/800/- 5. Purchase of Ac. 1.14 cents of wet land in the name of AO/s son Srinivasa Kumar at Uppaluru in 1983. 15/960/- 6. Purchase of Ac. 2.10 cents of wet land in the name of A. Santakumari at Uppaluru in 1983. 29/400/ 7. Purchase of Ac. 2.00 cents of wet land in the name of Santakumari wife of AO situated at Uppaluru in 1983. 28/000/ 8. Purchase of Ac. 2.96 cents of wet land in the name of Santakumari w / o. AO at Uppaluru in 1983. 41/400/ 9. Purchase of Ac. 2.00 cents of wet land in the name of Vasasri d/o. AO at Uppaluru in 1983. 28/000/ 10. Purchase of house plot measuring 333 sq. yards in the name of Srinivasakumar s/o. AO at Patnamata in 1980 3/443-50 11. Purchase of house plot Ac. 0.66 cents in the name of Santakumari w/0 AO at Nunna in 1980. 6/825/ 12. Purchase of house plot in Jubilee Hills Co-op. House Building Society, Hyderabad in the name of Santakumari w/o. AO in 1980. 21/745/- 13. Value of the household articles as per the in ventory dated 28-9-1986. 27/635/ 14. Investment in Vikas Cash certificate in Syndicate Bank in the name of Srinivasa kumar, s/o. AO vide certificate No.1528 dated 28-3-1985. 51/000/- 15. Cash balance in CL A/c.No. 1207 in the name of. Srinivasa kumar slo AO in Syndicate Bank, Vijayawada. 5,000/- 16. Investment in Spl.Term Deposit receipt No.706324 dt. 5-6-1979 in the name of Vasasree in S.B.I. Vijayawada. 25,000- 17. Cash balance in S.B. Ale. No.6545 in Andhra Bank, Krishnalanka Branch in the name of A. Pitchaiah. 2,0861 18. Cash balance in S.B.AI C.No. 5403 in the name of Srinivasakumar s/o. AO in Vysya Bank, Governorpet Branch, Vijayawada. 7,787-60 19. Cash balance in S.B. A/c.No. 34/3512 in the name of the Radhakrishnamurthy in S.B.I. Governorpet Branch, Vijayawada. 32,727- 20. Amount deposited in Bhaskar Savings Co., Tadepalligudem in the name of A. Srinivasakumar son of AO. 13,200/- 21. Cash balance in savings A/c in the name of Vasasree in M/ s. Bhaskara Savings Co., Tadepalligudem. 4,000/- 22. Purchase of new Premier Pad mini car AIK 959 in the name of Vasasree (benami) 78,000/- 23. Purchase of mild steel tubes etc., for the erection of borewell at Uppaluru. 3,870-15 7,80,44-33 Total Assets or 7,80,448/ - 5. 13,200/- 21. Cash balance in savings A/c in the name of Vasasree in M/ s. Bhaskara Savings Co., Tadepalligudem. 4,000/- 22. Purchase of new Premier Pad mini car AIK 959 in the name of Vasasree (benami) 78,000/- 23. Purchase of mild steel tubes etc., for the erection of borewell at Uppaluru. 3,870-15 7,80,44-33 Total Assets or 7,80,448/ - 5. Following is the income of the accused during the check period. ITEM DESCRIPTION OF THE INCOME VALUE OF NO. THE INCOME (in Rs.) 1. Salary income of AO during the check period. 1,19,431-43 2. Rental income on building on D.No. 140-C old Santoshnagar, Hyderabad from 1974 to 1986. 17.600/- 3. Rental income on building D.No. 27, Bhimnagar Colony, Hyderabad from 1981 to 1986. 15,000/- 4. Income received through sale of Ac. 2/- cents of wet land in Machilipatnam to Sri N. Venkateswar Rao vide D.No. 691/1983. 17,000/- 5. Income received through sale of Ac. 2/- cents of wet land in machilipatnam to Sri N. Venkatappaiah vide RD.No. 692/1983. 17,000/- 6. Income received through sale of Ac. 1-83 cents of wet land in Machilipatnam to Smt. A Anjamma vide RD.No. 693/1983. 15,600/- 7. Agricultural income received on Ac. 1-02 cents of wet land situated at Arisepally in the name of Smt. A Santakumari from 1971 to 1986. 18,121-57 8. Agricultural income received on Ac. 7-83 cents of wet land situated in Machilipatnam in the name of Smt. A Santakumari from 1975 to 1983 and on Ac.2/- from 1983 to 1986. 22,282-70 9. Agricultural income received on Ac.8-20 cents of wet land situated in Uppaluru in the name of Smt. A. Santakumari w/o.AO. 19,100-06 10. Rental income on building in D.No. 41-20-2/21 in Vijayawada from 1973 to 1986. 47,100/- 6. During the same check period, the following is shown as expenditure of the accused. ITEM DESCRIPTION OF THE EXPENDITURE VALUE OF THE NO. EXPENDITURE (in Rs.) 1. Family expenditure of AO during check period. 1,56,617/- 2. Payment of premium to LIC Policy No.43270248 by A.RK. Murthy in Chittoor branch of LIC of India. 8,173-20/- 3. Payment of premium to LIC Policy No.37914185 by ARK. Murthy in Nizamabad branch of LIC 8,415/- 4. Payment of premium to LIC policy No.37268466 by Santakumari wi o. AO in LIC branch, Vijayawada. 5,594-60 5. Payment of advance for the booking of Priya Scooter in Mis. Automotive Manufcturers Ltd., Viskhapatnam. 2,000/- 6. 8,173-20/- 3. Payment of premium to LIC Policy No.37914185 by ARK. Murthy in Nizamabad branch of LIC 8,415/- 4. Payment of premium to LIC policy No.37268466 by Santakumari wi o. AO in LIC branch, Vijayawada. 5,594-60 5. Payment of advance for the booking of Priya Scooter in Mis. Automotive Manufcturers Ltd., Viskhapatnam. 2,000/- 6. Loan repayment by Santakumari w/0 Radhakrishnamurthy in SBI, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada in 1984. 1,858-10 7. Loan repayment by ARK Murthy in Syndicate Bank, Vijayawada Vide L.D.No. 75/83. 1,616-25 8. Payment of stamp duty and registration charges on the purchase of immovable property by AO during the check period. 28,293-55 9. Payment of house tax to Municipal Corporation Hyderabad for the house D.No. 140-C Santoshnagar stands in the name of AO. 1,793/ - 10. Payment of house tax to Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad for the house in D.No. 27 in Indiranagar, Hyderabad. 3,168-85 11. Payment of house tax to Municipal Corporation Vijayawada for the house in D.No. 41-20-2/21 stands in the name of Srinivasakumar s/ o. AG. 7,350/ 12. Expenditure on children education. 38,130/ 13. Expenditure on daughters marriage in 1983 40,585-80 14. Expenditure on digging borewell and incidental charges. 1,947-50 15. Payment of premium to Life Assurance policies in the name of AO. 745/- 16. Payment of water tap connection and purchases of materials etc. 745/ 17. Payment of Insurance to Car AIK 959. 2,251/- 18. Purchase of Sumeet Grinder in the name of A. Srinivasakumar s/ o. AO. 1,160/- 19. Payment of Registration chargas and M.V. Taxation to Car AIK 959. 952/- 20. Maintenance expenditure on the Car AIK 959 during the check period. 9,736/- 21. Maintenance expenditure on Car APN 3235 by AO for a period of 7 years. 25,800/- 22. Payment of land sist to Ac. 8.20 cents of wet land at Uppaluru. 1,061-40/- 23. Payment of land sist for Ac.1-02 cents of wet land at Arisepally. 350/- 24. Payment of land sist to Ac.7.83 cents in Machilipatnam. 1,241-68/- Total expenditure 3,38,5921 - 7. The Special Judge on appraisal of the evidence, found that the accused was holding assets worth Rs.5,76,345-81 ps. in excess of his known source of income. The following is the table showing the assets, expenditure and income of the accused during the check period, which was arrived at by the trial court. 1,241-68/- Total expenditure 3,38,5921 - 7. The Special Judge on appraisal of the evidence, found that the accused was holding assets worth Rs.5,76,345-81 ps. in excess of his known source of income. The following is the table showing the assets, expenditure and income of the accused during the check period, which was arrived at by the trial court. As per Prosecution As per Court below (in Rs.) (in Rs.) Assets 7,80,4481 7,61,885-39 Expenditure 3,38,592/- 3,00,087-76 Income 3,07,256-76 4,04,689-75 8. The question that arises for consideration is "whether the prosecution was able to establish, by legal evidence, that the accused was in possession of the disproportionate assets to his known sources of income in the name of his father, wife, son and daughter, apart from his name". 9. It is well settled legal proposition that initial burden lies on the prosecution to prove that the accused had acquired disproportionate assets either in his name or on his behalf during the check period. Then only the onus shifts on to the accused to satisfactorily account for the pecuniary resources and the properties acquired in his name or on his behalf. 10. Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused, submits that it was for the prosecution to establish by legal and cogent evidence that the accused acquired properties disproportionate to his known sources of income in his name or on his behalf. He further submits that it is for the prosecution to establish by legal and cogent evidence that the properties standing in the name of his father, wife and children are not their own and they are holding the same on behalf of the accused. He contends that though the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden and prove that the properties were held benami by the father, wife, son and daughter of the accused on his behalf, the trial Court without any justification held that the accused possessed disproportionate assets to his known sources of income. He contends that though the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden and prove that the properties were held benami by the father, wife, son and daughter of the accused on his behalf, the trial Court without any justification held that the accused possessed disproportionate assets to his known sources of income. In support of his contention he relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in K. Ponnuswamy v. State of T.N.(2001) 6 SCC 674, which is to the following effect; "It is well settled that the burden of showing that a particular transaction is benami and the appellant owner is not the real owner always rests on the person asserting it to be so and this burden has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidence of a definite character which would either directly prove the fact of benami or establish circumstances unerringly and reasonably raising an inference of that fact. The essence of benami is the intention of the parties and not unoften, such intention is shrouded in a thick veil which cannot be easily pierced through. But such difficulties do not relieve the person aserting the transaction to be benami of the serious onus that rests on him, nor justify the acceptance of mere conjectures or surmises as a substitute for proof. It is not enough merely to show circumstances which might create suspicion, because the court cannot decide on the basis of suspicion. It has to act on legal grounds established by evidence. 11. To decide these questions, it is necessary to go into the facts of the case. The accused joined the Government service in the Transport Department on 19-10-1966. He was promoted as Motor Vehicle Inspector in the year 1980. A search was made in the houses of the accused, his father and other places on 28-9-1986 by the Anti-Corruption Bureau. Therefore, the relevant data to arrive at the figure of disproportionate assets to known sources is taken from the period from 19-10-1966 till 28-9-1986, i.e., total period of 20 years. FAMILY BACKGROUND OF THE ACCUSED: 12. A. Pichaiah is the father of the accused, who hails from Mokollu village of Pedana Mandal of Krishna District. He had four daughters and three sons. Accused is the eldest among the sons and third in serial. The said Pichaiah has got certain ancestral agricultural lands and house property. FAMILY BACKGROUND OF THE ACCUSED: 12. A. Pichaiah is the father of the accused, who hails from Mokollu village of Pedana Mandal of Krishna District. He had four daughters and three sons. Accused is the eldest among the sons and third in serial. The said Pichaiah has got certain ancestral agricultural lands and house property. As per Ex.D-6, which is a registered partition deed, the father of the accused was holding the total agricultural lands in an extent of Ac. 3-50 cents apart from house property admeasuring about 450 square yards. He performed the marriages of all his daughters and sons except the accused. The first brother of the accused Sri Ramachandra Rao, was serving in the Indian Army. The last brother of the accused Narayana Rao was working as Driver and residing along with his father at Machilipatnam. The grand father of the accused is one G. Anjaiah of Kapaleshwarapuram. The wife of the accused, by name Shanta Kumari (D.W.13), is the son's daughter of G. Anjaiah, and the accused is the daughter's son of the said G. Anjaiah. Thus the accused and his wife Shanta Kumari D/0 Suryanarayana are the grand children of G. Anjaiah. Both of them studied at Kapeleshwarapuram. The marriage of the accused with Shanta Kumar, took place in 1964 even prior to his entering into Government Service. By the time of their marriage, Shanta Kumari was working as Telephone Operator in Telecom Department in Hyderabad. After the marriage, the accused got appointment in the Transport Department in 1966. Shanta Kumari resigned the job in 1967 and remained as housewife. It is the case of the accused that prior to his joining Government Service in 1966, he worked as Technical Assistant at Nagarjunasagar Dam, after completing his Dipoloma in Automobile Engineering in 1962. He worked during 1962-63 as NMR on daily wage basis. From 2-7-1963 to 2-4-1964 he worked as Technical Assistant in the Mechanical Division of Nagarjunasagar Dam and received a salary of Rs.1,724-25 ps., as per salary particulars vide Exs.D-26 and D-35. He also worked as Technical Assistant in Earth Moving Machinery, Khairatabad at Hyderabad from 10-9-1964 to 20-12-1964 on temporary basis. During the period from 30-12-1964 to 17-10-1966, he worked as Drawing instructor in Government Industrial Training Institute, Mallepally, Hyderabad and drew the total salary of Rs.3,675-12 ps. He also worked as Technical Assistant in Earth Moving Machinery, Khairatabad at Hyderabad from 10-9-1964 to 20-12-1964 on temporary basis. During the period from 30-12-1964 to 17-10-1966, he worked as Drawing instructor in Government Industrial Training Institute, Mallepally, Hyderabad and drew the total salary of Rs.3,675-12 ps. In support of his contention, D.W.4/ the Junior Assistant in ITI, Mallepally, was examined and particulars of the salary drawn is marked as Ex.D-5. Thus the case of the accused is that he had an opening balance of Rs.7/170-00 by 19-10-1966 on the day of his entering into Government Service. 13. It is not in dispute that the wife of the accused worked as Sorter in Census Department, Vijayawada from 17-7-1961 to 10-11-1961. ExD-15 is the certificate issued by the Government of India stating that she received a salary of Rs.1/125/ - for a period of four months. At that time she was living with her father at Vijayawada, who was then employed as Section Head in Accounts Department of South Central Railway, Vijayawada. It is also not in dispute that the wife of the accused worked as Telephone Operator from January 1963 to January 1968. Ex.D-45 is her appointment order as Telephone Operator. It is stated that she worked upto March, 1968 and thereafter she was absented from duty and therefore her absence was treated as her resignation. Thus it is the case of the accused that his wife, D.W.13, drew an amount of Rs.8/954-55 ps./- during the said period and an amount of Rs.1/125-00 for her four months' service in Census Department, Vijayawada and that a total amount of Rs.10/079-55 ps. was the accumulations by his wife. 14. It is the case of the prosecution that all the assets acquired by the wife of the accused were in fact acquired by the accused and therefore they were treated as assets of the accused. ITEM NO.4 OF THE ASSETS: 15. At the earliest point of time, the wife of the accused acquired item No.4 of the assets. She explained the sources of investment as follows: It is the case of the wife of the accused that she married the accused, who is her paternal aunt's son, on 21-5-1964 and her paternal grand father G. Anjaiah has taken care of her education and the accused and also performed their marriage and at the time of their marriage, Ac. She explained the sources of investment as follows: It is the case of the wife of the accused that she married the accused, who is her paternal aunt's son, on 21-5-1964 and her paternal grand father G. Anjaiah has taken care of her education and the accused and also performed their marriage and at the time of their marriage, Ac. 1-02 cents of land was given to her as stree dhana apart from a cash gift of Rs.10,000/- and she had accumulated the salary funds of Rs.10,079-55 ps. She also stated that she received certain marriage gifts worth Rs.5,816/ -. It is her case that she was in possession of cash of more than Rs.27,000/-by the time when she purchased Ac. 7-83 cents of agricultural lands in Bandarikota village on 5-2-1975 for a consideration of Rs.24,800/-, vide EX.P-4. A sum of Rs.2,672-00 was spent towards registration charges and a total sum of Rs.27,472/- was spent towards purchase of the said agricultural land. There is no dispute as regards the stree dhana property i.e., an extent of Ac. 1-02 cents of agricultural land gifted by her father. The only dispute is with regard to the cash gift of Rs.10,000/- by her paternal grand father and also the marriage gifts of Rs.5,816/-. To prove the source of investment in purchasing item No.4 of the assets, she herself was examined as D.W.13 and she stated that at the time of marriage she was given Ac. 1-02 cents of land in Arsepally village near Machilipatnam, which is adjacent land of the father of the accused. At the time of the marriage she received 30 / tulas of gold, 1.5 kgs. of silver and 10 tulas of gold, all put together worth Rs.10,000/-. Cash gifts from friends and relatives is Rs.5,816/- and other gifts on various occasions worth Rs.12,000/- were received by her. The details of the amounts received were set au t in the Income Tax returns for the years 1964, 1979 and 1980. She filed Ex.D-84 return for the assessment year 1973-74 disclosing her income as Rs.3,653/-, which was accepted by the Income Tax Officer under ExD-96. The details of the amounts received were set au t in the Income Tax returns for the years 1964, 1979 and 1980. She filed Ex.D-84 return for the assessment year 1973-74 disclosing her income as Rs.3,653/-, which was accepted by the Income Tax Officer under ExD-96. A perusal of the assessment order of the Income Tax Department, which is marked as Ex.D-96, discloses that the initial capital for money lending business is the gift amount of Rs.10,000/- received from her maternal grand father in the year 1964 besides gifts received at the time of her marriage in the same year. Her income was assessed at Rs.6,000/- and a sum of Rs.145/- was collected as income tax, including interest amount. Similarly Ex.D-85 income tax return for the assessment year 1974-75 and Ex. D-97 is the assessment order. As against the income of Rs.2,700-00 shown by the wife of the accused, her total income was estimated as Rs.6,500/- and tax of Rs.198/-, including interest, was collected. Ex.D-86 is the return of income for the assessment year 1975-76 and Ex.D-98 is the assessment order wherein the total income was shown as Rs.4,753/and the income was estimated at Rs.7,000/and total tax of Rs.132/ - was levied and collected. For the assessment year 1975 to 77 she filed return of income tax under Ex.D-87 showing income of Rs.7,453/-, but her income was estimated at Rs.8,500/ -. She has also shown the agricultural income as Rs.19,143/ - and a tax of Rs.223/ -was levied and collected. She purchased agricultural land in an extent of Ac. 7-83 cents on 5-2-1975 for a sum of Rs.27,000/- and thus she was able to prove her source of investment for the purchase of the said land. 16. As against the above evidence adduced on behalf of the accused, the prosecution was not able to establish that the said asset was acquired by the accused in the name of his wife. The Anti-Corruption Bureau authorities have not summoned either the father or the grand father of D.W.13, to prove the genuineness of the so called gift of Ac. 1-02 cents of agricultural land towards stree dhana and the cash gift of Rs.10,000/- by the grand father and also the other marriage gifts. There is no contra evidence adduced by the prosecution. The Anti-Corruption Bureau authorities have not summoned either the father or the grand father of D.W.13, to prove the genuineness of the so called gift of Ac. 1-02 cents of agricultural land towards stree dhana and the cash gift of Rs.10,000/- by the grand father and also the other marriage gifts. There is no contra evidence adduced by the prosecution. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the accused was able to account for satisfactorily for the asset standing in the name of his wife and the asset No.4 and the expenditure incurred thereon cannot be added to the assets of the accused. 17. The Jubilee Hills Co-operative House Building Society, Hyderabad allotted house plot No.839-1 in the name of the wife of the accused Shanta Kumari (D.W.13). She paid an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards the admission fee and Rs.100/- towards share amount on 14-8-1975, as spoken to by P.W. 7. The value of the plot was Rs.21,745/-. She paid the total amount in instalments, i.e., Rs.6,000/- on 20-9-1975, Rs.1,000/- on 25-10-1975, Rs.1,(XX)/ - on 4-3-1980, Rs.4,525 /on 16-1-1982 by way of Demand Draft, Rs.3,375/- on 24-5-1982, and Rs.5,640/- on 16-1-1982. P.W. 7, who was working as Supervisor in Jubilee Hills Co-operative House Building Society, Hyderabad, is examined on behalf of the prosecution. Out of the total sum of Rs.21,745/-, an amount of Rs.3,375/- was the accrued interest on the deposit. The question that arises for consideration as to whether the accused was having resources to purchase the said property at the relevant point of time. 18. By the time she purchased the agricultural lands measuring Ac. 7-83 cents, she was having sufficient accumulated funds as reflected in the Income Tax returns. She was having the agricultural income derived from Ac. 1-02 cents of land gifted to her by her father towards stree dhana. The total amount that was invested by her was only Rs.18,370/- in acquiring the property in Jubilee Hills. After paying the share capital and admission fee of Rs.105/-, she paid the first instalment amount of Rs.6,000/- on 20-9-1975 and Rs.1,000/- on 25-10-1975. Then after five years i.e., 4-3-1980, she paid Rs.1,000/-. The total after amount paid by her in the year 1982 is Rs.13,540/-, which was a major contribution for acquiring the Jubilee Hills property, by which time, she was having sufficient accumulated resources to purchase the said property as reflected in her Income Tax returns. Then after five years i.e., 4-3-1980, she paid Rs.1,000/-. The total after amount paid by her in the year 1982 is Rs.13,540/-, which was a major contribution for acquiring the Jubilee Hills property, by which time, she was having sufficient accumulated resources to purchase the said property as reflected in her Income Tax returns. As per the assessment order for the assessment year 1975-76 (Ex. D-98), her income was estimated at Rs.7,000/-. For the assessment year 197677 her estimated income, as per Ex.D-99, is Rs.8,500/- and therefore, it cannot be said that she was not having sources to invest a sum of Rs.6,000/- towards the first installment for acquiring asset No.12. The assessment order for the assessment year 1973-74 is marked as Ex.D-96, another copy of which is marked as Ex.D-100. Ex.D-77 and Ex.D-101 are one and the same referring to the assessment order for the assessment year 1974-75. Ex.D-98 and Ex.D-102 are relating to the same assessment order for the assessment year 1975-76. Ex.D-99 and Ex.D-103 are copies of assessment order for the assessment year 1976/77. EX.D-107 is the assessment order for the assessment year 1980-81. In her Income Tax returns she has shown the total income of Rs.10,644/derived from the money lending business, and under the head of 'agricultural income' a sum of Rs.22,840/- was shown. An enquiry was also made under the Income Tax Act and in response to the notice 'issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, the authorized representative V. Subba Rayudu, who was examined as D.W.12, was appeared before the Income Tax Officer and after discussion, the income derived by D.W.13 for the assessment year 1980-81 showing agricultural income as Rs.20,840/- and the income derived from the money lending was also accepted and a tax of Rs.461/- was paid thereon. Even in the previous assessment year also a total business income of Rs.10,140/- and agricultural income of Rs.8,600/- was shown, which is evident from the assessment order EX.D-106. 19. To prove the genuineness of the resources of assets and income relating to his wife, the accused examined D.W.13 i.e., his wife, D.W.12, the authorized representative of D.W.13, and D.W.24 who is the Income Tax Inspector. Original Income Tax returns submitted by D.W.13 were obtained by the Investigating Officer during the course of enquiry and marked through D.W.24. He confirmed that Exs.D-84 to D-95 are the original returns contained in EX.D-1 file. Original Income Tax returns submitted by D.W.13 were obtained by the Investigating Officer during the course of enquiry and marked through D.W.24. He confirmed that Exs.D-84 to D-95 are the original returns contained in EX.D-1 file. He also confirmed that Exs.D-96 to D-112 are the original returns relating to the assessment year contained in Ex.D-2 file. The genuineness or otherwise of the Income Tax returns and the sources of income and the assessment orders are not doubted, but the Court below brushed aside the said evidence by stating that they are all manipulated. To come to the conclusion as to whether all the Income Tax returns are manipulated or not, there is no contra evidence adduced by the prosecution. The Investigating Officer has not examined or summoned the father or grandfather of D.W.13, who contributed the initial source for the capital for D.W.13. D.W.13 was having sufficient resources to purchase item No.4 of the assets and derived the agricultural income from her stree dhana property of Ac. 1-02 cents of land as well as the land in an extent of Ac. 7-83 cents purchased by her in 1975 under Ex.D-75. D.W.13 also stated in the Income Tax returns for the assessment year 1981-82 that her agricultural income was Rs.24,000/ -. Thus there is sufficient evidence in support of the contention of D.W.13 that item No.12 of the asset is her self Acquired property, but not the property acquired by the accused. The said property was not acquired by the accused in the name of D.W.13 on his behalf, but it was acquired by D.W.13 alone from out of her own resources. Therefore, asset No.12 is deleted from the assets of the accused. ITEM NO.2 OF THE ASSETS: 20. The third item that was acquired by D.W.13 is item No.2 of the assets. D.W.13 was an LIC policyholder. She obtained the policy on 20-10-1980. Item No.2 is the house bearing No.27, allotted by the LIC at Bhimnagar, Hyderabad, under Public Housing Scheme, which was adjacent to the house allotted to the wife of D.W.5. She got the house in the lottery drawn in between the policyholders of the LIC The said house was allotted to her for consideration amount of Rs.87,684/ - vide registered sale deed dated 20-5-1981. The registration expenses were Rs.4,560/-. The total expenses for acquiring item No.2 of the assets was Rs.87,684-15 ps. She got the house in the lottery drawn in between the policyholders of the LIC The said house was allotted to her for consideration amount of Rs.87,684/ - vide registered sale deed dated 20-5-1981. The registration expenses were Rs.4,560/-. The total expenses for acquiring item No.2 of the assets was Rs.87,684-15 ps. In fact the said house was allotted in December 1979 itself on lottery basis. But registration was done on 20-5-1981 and possession of the house was given immediately thereafter, i.e., in June 1981. She made the initial deposit of Rs.3,500/- and there after she paid an amount of Rs.4,692/ - on 12-2-1980, Rs.8,192/ - on 2-7-1980, Rs.5,739-59 ps. on 18-4-1981 and Rs.15,000/-on 29-4-1981. After payment of the entire sale consideration amount, the said house was registered in the name of D.W.13 and she alone bore the registration charges. She explained the resources for the said acquisition of item No: 2 of the assets as follows: The agricultural income derived from Bandarukota land, which was given towards her stree dhana, from 1975 to 1980 and substantial portion of the income which she derived from 1975 onwards from out of Ac.7-83 cents of agricultural lands, acquired in 1975. Thus there is no iota of doubt the availability of resources in the hands of D.W.13 for the purchase of LIC house, which amount was invested during the years 1980 and 1981. Therefore, I am of the opinion that D.W.13 herself acquired the LIC house from out of her own funds. I will deal with the next question as regards to the construction of first floor in the year 1985, at a later point of time. 21. D.W.13 sold away an extent of Ac. 5-83 cents of land from out of Ac. 7-83 cents of land on 17-3-1981, vide Ex.P-141, P-142 and EX.P-l43 for a sum of Rs.49,600/-. She also got agricultural income of Rs.18,813.25 which was shown in the income tax return for the assessment year 1981-82. She further received a sum of Rs.23,323-82 towards rents, which was shown in the return for the assessment year 1982-83 and rents from 1981 to 1983 from the LIC house. After disposal of Ac. 5-83 cents of land, she was still having Ac. 2.00 cents of land in Bandarikota village, apart from Ac. 1-02 cents of land at Kapeleshwarpuram. After selling away the agricultural land in an extent of Ac. After disposal of Ac. 5-83 cents of land, she was still having Ac. 2.00 cents of land in Bandarikota village, apart from Ac. 1-02 cents of land at Kapeleshwarpuram. After selling away the agricultural land in an extent of Ac. 5.83 cents for a sums of Rs.49,600/- on 17-3-1983, she acquired Ac. 2.10 cents at Uppalur vide Ex.P-6 for a sum of Rs.29,400/-. ITEMS NOS. 6 TO 8 OF THE ASSETS: 22. Apart from the purchase of land as I stated above, she acquired Ac. 7-06 cents of land vide Ex.P-6 to P-8 for a sum of Rs.98,800/-. The question is whether D.W.13 was able to explain her resources for the purchase of items No.6 to 8 for Rs.98,800/. As already stated, she sold Ac. 5.83 cents of agricultural land in Bandarikota village on 17-3-1983 under Ex.P-141 to P-143 and realized a sum of Rs.49,600/-. A sum of Rs.18,813/- received by her as agricultural income, which was shown by her in her Income Tax returns for the assessment year 1981-82 and Rs.23,329-40 ps. for the year 1982-83 was accepted by the Income Tax Officer. Apart from that she has also derived the rents from the LIC house from 1981 to 1983., amounting to Rs.13,149-80 ps. The total resources that were available in the hands of D.W.13 was Rs.1,04,892-41 which was sufficient to acquire items 6 to 8 of the assets. Apart from the said resources, as reflected from the Income Tax returns she has sold gold jewelry on 9-4-1980 and realized Rs.6,400/ -. The income derived by her from the agriculture, interest, tailoring etc., were also reflected in her Income Tax returns for the investments made by her for purchase of the aforesaid items. From the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the accused has accounted for satisfactorily with regard to the pecuniary resources and the purchase of property acquired by D.W.13 and that the said property was not acquired by the accused on his behalf in the name of his wife, but it was the self-acquired property of the wife of the accused, i.e., D.W.13 alone. Item Nos. 6 to 8 of assets are accordingly deleted from the assets of the accused. ITEM NOS. 5, 9 AND 10: 23. Item Nos. 6 to 8 of assets are accordingly deleted from the assets of the accused. ITEM NOS. 5, 9 AND 10: 23. Though an attempt was made by D.W.13 to explain the resources for the purchase of item No.5 in the name of the son of the accused, item No.19 in the name of the daughter of the accused, item No.10 in the name of the son of the accused, I am of the view that after purchasing items Nos. 6 to 8 and 12, D.W.13 must not be having any surplus funds. Admittedly, the son and daughters are the minors and they have no independent source of income. Though it is stated that the mother advanced them, the source of investment, as has been observed supra, the resources available in the hands of the mother, (i.e., wife of the accused) were only sufficient to acquire the agricultural lands, house site and house property in her name. From the above, it is clear that neither the accused nor D.W.13 have properly accounted for the acquisition of the said properties under items No.5, 9 and 10 and hence, the prosecution was able to prove that the said items No.5, 9 and 10 were not acquired from out of the funds advanced by D.W.13. Therefore, a reasonable presumption that can be drawn that the accused alone advanced the funds for the purchase of the said items of property in the name of his son and daughter and the accused alone is the real owner of these items of property. ITEM No.11 OF THE ASSETS: 24. Item No.11 is the dry land measuring Ac. 0.65 cents situated at Nunna village purchased by the wife of the accused in 1980. She purchased the said property under Ex.P-10 for a sum of Rs.6,825/-. The registration expenses were Rs.700/ - and the total amount spent for acquiring item No.11 of the assets was Rs.7,595/ -. The source for the acquisition of the above asset are reflected in the Income Tax returns for the years 1979 to 1981 and as stated by D.W.13 to the effect that she received a sum of Rs.2,000/ - from her father Subrahmanyam on 5-4-1979, Rs.2,000/- from one Chandramouli, the brother of D.W.13, on 7-4-1979 and Rs.2,000/from Sampurnamma, paternal aunt of D.W.13, on 9-4-1979 to wards cashgifts. Thus in all, a sum of Rs.6,000/- was received as cash gifts from her father, brother and paternal aunt and she was also having some cash on hand when item No.11 was purchased. A perusal of Ex.P-10 discloses that she alone paid the sale consideration amount to the vendor. The schedule of the property as mentioned in the said sale deed shows that Ac. 0.65 cents of land is only an agricultural land but not a house site. But at serial No.11 of the assets, it is shown as house plot admeasuring 0.66 cents instead of 0.65 cents of agricultural land in survey No.287/80 situated at Nunna village, Vijayawada, purchased vide Ex.P-I0 registered Sale Deed, document No.3344/83. Thus the accused satisfactorily explained the pecuniary source for acquiring the said item No.11 of the assets by his wife. 25. The wife of the accused is not claiming any other item, except the aforesaid properties i.e., item Nos. 2, 4, 6 to 8, 11 and 12. Insofar as item No.12 of the assets, i.e., LIC house which was purchased by D.W.13 in 1980 and first floor was raised later on and admittedly, the construction was made in the year 1985. The ground floor was purchased for a sum of Rs.87,684/-, vide Ex.P-3 Sale Deed. The said house was leased out by D.W.13 from the date of allotment. The first floor was constructed under the supervision on D.W.5. D.W.5 was also helping the wife of the accused in collecting the rents from the tenants. It is stated that a sum of Rs.49,000/- was received towards rents from the said house, which is reflected in the Income Tax returns filed by D.W.13 till the end of the check period. D.W. 5 stated that about Rs.50,000/ - was incurred for the construction of first floor. The said expenditure was incurred from out of the rents received. She has given explanation about the resources for purchase of LIC house for a sum of Rs.87,864/- including to registration charges and for spending of additional amount for construction of first floor Rs.52,360/-, making a total of Rs.1,44,044-14 ps. But the Anti-corruption Bureau officials estimated the value of the said property as Rs.1,45,911/-. The said acquisition and investment over the said property was accepted by the Income Tax Department. Therefore, I am inclined to accept the value of the asset at item No.2 as only Rs.1,44,044-14 ps. But the Anti-corruption Bureau officials estimated the value of the said property as Rs.1,45,911/-. The said acquisition and investment over the said property was accepted by the Income Tax Department. Therefore, I am inclined to accept the value of the asset at item No.2 as only Rs.1,44,044-14 ps. for which there is a positive evidence like flow of money, source and nature of expenditure etc., and, therefore, I am of the view that Item No.2 of the assets has to be deleted from the assets of the accused. 26. For the acquisition of assets at item Nos. 2, 4, 6 to 8, 11 and 12, by the wife of the accused, sufficient explanation is forthcoming from the income tax returns filed by the wife of the accused, but, the Court below held that no importance need be given to the said Income Tax returns and to the evidence of D.Ws. 5, 12 and 13. The Court below without any basis whatsoever gave a finding that the Income Tax returns filed by D.W.13, wife of the accused, look somewhat dubious. The Court below further came to the conclusion that the filing of Income Tax returns are without any basis and the same are not acceptable and held that all the Income Tax returns and the assessment orders are only manipulations. 27. Admittedly, the Income Tax returns are filed from 1973-74 onwards, i.e., about 14 years prior to the check period. It is stated that the daughter of the accused was given in marriage to a person who stays at Cudappah and as the Income Tax returns can be filed anywhere in the State, D.W.13 chosen to file the Income Tax returns at Cudappah and merely because she has filed all her Income Tax returns at Cudappah, it cannot be said that the Income Tax returns filed by her, assessment orders issued by the Income Tax Department are not acceptable without there being any contra evidence adduced by the prosecution. It is stated that D.W.13 has confidence in the Income Tax practitioner, i.e., D. W. 12, who is practicing at Cudappah and therefore she has chosen to file the Income Tax returns at Cudappah. Therefore, It cannot be said that the evidence relating to filing the returns and assessment orders do not inspire confidence about the correctness of those Income Tax returns. Therefore, It cannot be said that the evidence relating to filing the returns and assessment orders do not inspire confidence about the correctness of those Income Tax returns. The learned Judge without any legal or factual foundation declined to give weight to the Income Tax returns and treated all the assets of D.W.13 as assets of the accused. To disprove the prima facie evidence available on record, i.e., Income Tax returns, assessment order, gift tax, wealth tax returns and orders relating thereto, the prosecution neither examined nor summoned either the brother, father, grand father or paternal aunt of D.W.13 and the persons named therein and they have also not examined the persons who are cultivating the lands of D.W.13. Admittedly, D.W.13 was in service much prior to her marriage with the accused and accumulated certain funds. She derived income from her stree dhana property and received some gifts at the time of her marriage such as cash gifts, gold jewelry, silver and others articles which have been reelected in her Income Tax returns. She also filed a gift tax return gifting F.D.R. of Rs.18,965-73 ps. on 28-4-1983 in favour of her daughter and paid a tax of Rs.3,193/-. She also filed wealth tax returns for the year ending 31-3-1984 wherein she has shown the values of the agricultural lands, LIC house and the investment made for the purchase of the house site in the Jubilee Hills Co-operative Housing Society and also the cash balance etc. 28. To demolish or controvert the evidence of D.W.13 supported by D.Ws. 12, 15 and 5 and the Income Tax, Gift Tax, Wealth Tax returns and the Income Tax assessment orders, there is no contra evidence adduced by the prosecution. A perusal of the evidence adduce on behalf of the accused explaining the pecuniary resources and acquisition of the aforesaid properties by the wife of the accused, goes to prove that all those properties are self-acquired properties of D.W.13 and therefore, I am of the opinion that the accused was satisfactorily able to account for the aforesaid assets acquired by his wife, but not by him or on his behalf. Accordingly, item Nos. 2, 4, 6 to 8, 11 and 12 are deleted from the assets of the accused and treated as the self acquired properties of D.W.13. ITEM No.1 OF THE ASSETS OF THE ACCUSED: 29. Accordingly, item Nos. 2, 4, 6 to 8, 11 and 12 are deleted from the assets of the accused and treated as the self acquired properties of D.W.13. ITEM No.1 OF THE ASSETS OF THE ACCUSED: 29. Initially the house plot relating to item No.1 was purchased in 1970 and construed a house therein in the year 1972-73. It is the case of the accused that the asset is acquired by his father from out of his own funds and the joint family funds and further relied on the entries in EX.D-8 and D-9, i.e., books of accounts maintained by the mother of the accused for construction of the said house. It is stated that the father of the accused was having sufficient jointly family properties as well as self acquired properties and therefore, the said property was acquired by the father of the accused vide EX.D-48 and construction was made from out of the joint family funds as well as self acquired funds of the father of the accused and thereupon the said property was bequeathed in the name of the son of the accused vide Willnama dated 27-9-1978 under Ex.D-7. 30. The joint family owns only Ac. 4.59 cents of land and the house property admeasuring 582 square yards, as reflected in Ex.D-6 dated 20-6-1982. A-schedule properties of ExD-6 fell to the share of father of the accused, i.e., Ac. 1.00 of agricultural land at Arisepally village and 1/3rd share in the house of Balramunipeta, Machilipatnam admeasuring 122 square yards, apart from the adjacent vacant site of 222 square yards. B-schedule property was fallen to the share of the accused, i.e., Ac. 1.00 of land situated at Arisepally village and Ac. 0.25 cents of land adjacent to the above one acre of land, i.e., totally admeasuring Ac. 1.25 cents and also 1/3rd share in the house property at Balramunipeta. C-Schedule property was given to other son A Ramchander Rao admeasuring Ac. 1.25 cents of agricultural land situated at Arisepally village and Ac. 1.09 cents of agricultural land situated at S.N. Gollapalem apart from 1/3rd share in the house property of Balramunipeta admeasuring 120 square yards. 1.25 cents and also 1/3rd share in the house property at Balramunipeta. C-Schedule property was given to other son A Ramchander Rao admeasuring Ac. 1.25 cents of agricultural land situated at Arisepally village and Ac. 1.09 cents of agricultural land situated at S.N. Gollapalem apart from 1/3rd share in the house property of Balramunipeta admeasuring 120 square yards. The father of the accused was having three sons and four daughters and the income derived from the joint family property was hardly sufficient to meet the household expenditure, to get the education of his children and also to perform the marriages of four daughters and two sons. The marriage of the accused was not performed by his father, but it was performed by his grand father. It also shows that the father of the accused was not that affluent economically and he hails from a lower middle class family. He was not having independent property other than the joint family properties. The mother of the accused was also not having any independent source of income and she was not having any self acquired properties of her own, other than the joint family properties and therefore, the amount spent towards construction of house under Ex.D-8 and D-9 must have been provided by the accused. If that be so, it is not known under what authority and law he was entitled to bequeath the said property by way of a Will in favour of the son of the accused. Admittedly, the other sons are not well settled as that of the accused. One of the sons is only a private driver and later he got a job in Road Transport Corporation as Driver only. It is the normal tendency of any Pilrent to give more property to financially weaker member of the family and therefore ignoring the rights of the unsettled younger son, who is only a driver, the father of the accused could not have bequeathed the said property to the son of the accused. Even otherwise the father of the accused was not having sufficient resources to acquire item No.1 of the assets, which is worth Rs.1,59,000/-. Under the above circumstances, the Court below rightly held that item No.1 of the property belongs to the accused and the said property was acquired in the name of the father of the accused from out of the pecuniary resources advanced by the accused. Under the above circumstances, the Court below rightly held that item No.1 of the property belongs to the accused and the said property was acquired in the name of the father of the accused from out of the pecuniary resources advanced by the accused. 31. The father of the accused namely Pichaiah had left the house after the search of the house of the accused and his whereabouts are not known and, therefore, there was no occasion to examine him by the Anti Corruption Bureau authorities. The parents of the accused were not having the capacity either to purchase the plot or to construct the said house consisting of ground and first floors and admittedly the wife of the accused has not advanced any amounts. Further, the accused has utterly failed to explain the pecuniary resources in acquiring item No.1 of the assets in the name of the father of the accused. Nor the father of the accused was able to explain the pecuniary resources for acquiring the said asset in his favour Therefore, reasonable presumption can be drawn that the said property was acquired from out of the pecuniary resources of the accused alone and that it is the asset of the accused. 32. As the father of the accused was not having any sufficient source of income either from out of his individual avocation or from his joint family and the accused has utterly failed to account for satisfactorily insofar as I tern No.1 of the assets is concerned, the said item was held to be the asset of the accused himself acquired from out of his unknown sources of income. Therefore, the same, which is the subject matter of the charge sheet, is liable to be confiscated. 33. Admittedly, Item No.1 of the assets is proved to be acquired from out of the disproportionate sources of income of the accused and therefore, rental income arrived out of it, cannot be taken into account. ITEM NO.3 OF THE ASSETS: 34. Admittedly, item No.3 of the assets is purchased by the accused and its value as arrived at by the Court below Rs.19,523/ - is not disputed. ITEM NOS. 5.9 AND 10 OF THE ASSETS: 35. Insofar as item Nos. ITEM NO.3 OF THE ASSETS: 34. Admittedly, item No.3 of the assets is purchased by the accused and its value as arrived at by the Court below Rs.19,523/ - is not disputed. ITEM NOS. 5.9 AND 10 OF THE ASSETS: 35. Insofar as item Nos. 5, 9 and 10 are concerned, I have already held supra that those properties were purchased in the names of son and daughter of the accused and there were no surplus funds in the hands of the wife of the accused, i.e., D.W.13 to advance for the purchase of the said property in the names of her son and daughter and a reasonable presumption was rightly drawn by the Court below that the said assets were acquired from out of the unknown pecuniary resources of the accused only and therefore, items Nos. 5, 9 and 10 are rightly treated as assets of the accused. ITEM No.13 OF THE ASSETS: 36. Insofar as item No.13 is concerned, the total value of the household articles was assessed at Rs.27,635/- and there is no dispute with regard to their value, but the learned counsel appearing for the accused submits that admittedly the wife of the accused is also having independent source of income from the agriculture, money lending, tailoring, chit-fund etc., and therefore, she could have purchased some household articles from out of her independent income. 37. I am inclined to accept the contention advanced in this regard. As it is established in evidence that the wife of the accused was having independent income, she also might have contributed to some extent and purchased some of the household articles. Therefore, having regard to the quantum of income which the wife of the accused was earning, some reasonable amount, which is quantified at Rs.7,000/-, can be taken into account as the contribution of the wife under this head, which is liable to be deducted from out of the total value of the household articles. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.7,000/- is deleted from item No.13 and the value of item No.13 after such deduction, would be Rs.20,635/- as belonging to the accused. ITEM NOS. 14 TO 21 AND 23 OF THE ASSETS: 38. Insofar as item Nos.14 to 21 and 23 are concerned, there is no dispute as regards the value of the assets. 39. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.7,000/- is deleted from item No.13 and the value of item No.13 after such deduction, would be Rs.20,635/- as belonging to the accused. ITEM NOS. 14 TO 21 AND 23 OF THE ASSETS: 38. Insofar as item Nos.14 to 21 and 23 are concerned, there is no dispute as regards the value of the assets. 39. Item No.17 was rightly deleted from out of the assets of the accused as the amount of Rs.2,086/ - mentioned in the said item is lying in the Savings Bank Account belongs to the father of the accused and therefore it was rightly treated as the asset of the father of the accused, but not of the accused. 40. Insofar as item Nos. 14 to 16, 18 to 21 and 23 are concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the accused fairly submitted that all the properties may be treated as the assets of the accused and the Court below rightly treated them as the assets of the accused. ITEM No.22 OF THE ASSETS: 41. There is dispute with regard to item No.22 alone. It is stated that although the actual value of the asset of item No.22 is shown as Rs.78,000/ -, there was a refund of tax amount of Rs.11,300/- and therefore, the value of item No.22 of the assets is only Rs.66,700/-. According to the learned counsel, the said Premier Padmini Car was initially wanted to be registered as private car, but it was registered under 'Taxi Quota' and therefore there was difference of tax amount of Rs.11,300/- and the same was refunded. Thus the value of the asset is only Rs.66,700/ -. An attempt has been made that the said item No.22 of the assets was in fact purchased by the daughter of the accused. But, I am unable to accept the said contention for the following reasons: The accused purchased new Premier Padmini car from M/s. Bejawada Motors, Vijayawada in the name of his daughter for a sum of Rs.82,000/- and was using for his own purpose. The car was found in the residential premises of the accused at the time of search. The amount for the purchase of said car was paid in the following manner: (i) Pay Order No.72964 from Vijaya Bank, Vijayawada for Rs.47,000/-. (ii) Demand Draft No.545525 dated 19-2-1986 from State Bank of India, Government Branch, Vijayawada for Rs.10,000/-. The car was found in the residential premises of the accused at the time of search. The amount for the purchase of said car was paid in the following manner: (i) Pay Order No.72964 from Vijaya Bank, Vijayawada for Rs.47,000/-. (ii) Demand Draft No.545525 dated 19-2-1986 from State Bank of India, Government Branch, Vijayawada for Rs.10,000/-. (iii) Pay Order No.224339, Andhra Bank Kapeleshwaram Branch, Vijayawada for Rs.33,000/-. 42. The verification of the pay orders and Demand Drafts at the above said banks revealed the following facts: The daughter of the accused opened the Savings Bank Account No.5259 in Vijaya Bank on 28-11-1984 with the initial deposit of Rs.1200/- and subsequently some small amounts were credited to the account by way of transfer as per the entries in the pass-book and on 4-12-1984 an amount of Rs.10,000 / - was credited to her account. She received Demand Draft for Rs.10,000/from M/s. Bhaskar Savings Company, Tadepalligudem drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad as the accused opened the Savings Bank Account in M/s. Bhaskar Savings Company in the name of his daughter prior to her marriage and paid Rs.400 /- per month up to 30-5-1985 and thereby on the request of the accused, the said company sent a Demand Draft for Rs.10,000/- in the name of his daughter. The daughter of the accused was completely dependent on him prior to her marriage and so it must be held that the said amount was deposited in her account by the accused. Thus the Demand Draft for Rs.10,000/- is that of the accused alone, but does not belong to his daughter. There is another credit entry in the pass book of Rs.20,000/ - byway of transfer on 9-2-1986 in the Savings Bank Account No.5259 of his daughter. This amount was transferred from S.B. Account No.5043, Vijaya Bank, Govemerpeta, Vijayawada in the name of Srinivasa Kumar, who was the minor son of the accused. The said minor son was also completely dependent on the account and he was not having any independent source of income. There was another credit entry of Rs.26,995/- on 3-5-1985 by way of transfer from State Bank of India, Machilipatnam. The said minor son was also completely dependent on the account and he was not having any independent source of income. There was another credit entry of Rs.26,995/- on 3-5-1985 by way of transfer from State Bank of India, Machilipatnam. The verification discloses that an amount of Rs.10,000/- was deposited in cash by the accused on 28-4-1975 and obtained a special term deposit No.827818 in favour of his minor daughter for a period of ten years and it became matured on 28-4-1985 and that an amount of Rs.27,000/- was paid on 25-6-1985 by way of Demand Draft which was later transferred to the Vysya Bank. The Demand Draft for Rs.10,000/- dated 19-2-1986 was taken from the State Bank of India, Vijayawada and on verification of Bank records it was revealed that the accused was having S.B. Account No.34/3512, withdrew an amount of Rs.10,000/- and deposited the same in the bank and obtained the Demand Draft in the name of M/s. Bejawada Motors Ltd. Thus, the said amount of Rs.10,000/ also belongs to the accused which was utilized for purchase of the said car. The pay order No.224339 was obtained from the Andhra Bank, Krishnalanka Branch, Vijayawada for Rs.32,000/- for the purchase of the said car. From the above, it is clear that the prosecution was able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the S.B. Accounts were opened in the names of the minor son and minor daughter by the accused himself and he only deposited certain amounts and also the F.D.R. and that on maturity, he withdrew the same and utilized for the purchase of the said car. In support of their contention, the prosecution marked Ex.P-12, P-13, P-51, P-52, P-49, P-57, P-63 to 65 and examined P.Ws. 8, 9, 10, 13, 17 and 42. Thus, I have no doubt in my mind to hold that item No.22 is the asset of the accused only, but not the asset of his daughter and therefore, the same was rightly included in the assets of the accused. However, as already stated above, the value of item No.22 is taken only as Rs.66,700/-. 43. Thus, the total value of the assets of the accused in respect of items Nos. 1, 3, 5, 9, 10, 13 (part), 14 to 16, 18 to 23 is Rs.4,54;846-25 ps. INCOME OF THE ACCUSED ITEM NO.1 OF THE INCOME: 44. An amount of Rs.1,71,911.53 ps. 43. Thus, the total value of the assets of the accused in respect of items Nos. 1, 3, 5, 9, 10, 13 (part), 14 to 16, 18 to 23 is Rs.4,54;846-25 ps. INCOME OF THE ACCUSED ITEM NO.1 OF THE INCOME: 44. An amount of Rs.1,71,911.53 ps. was arrived at under Item No.1 by the Court below, which is not disputed. Thus the said amount was the income of the accused for the check period. ITEM NO.2 OF THE INCOME: 45. Item No.2 represents the rental income derived from the house of the accused which is situated at old Santoshnagar, Hyderabad and the court below assessed the same at Rs.32,700/-. 46. The learned counsel appearing for the accused submits that the accused had in fact derived a sum of Rs.48,900/- towards rents. According to him, the accused purchased the house bearing D.No. 140-C in old Santoshnagar colony, Hyderabad from A.P.Housing Board in 1974 and made some alterations in 1978. A portion of the house was under occupation of one Balram Murthy, brother-in-law of the accused, who was working as Draughtsman in the Engineering Department since its purchase. The second portion is under the occupation of one K.Krishna Reddy. On 4-11-1986 when the I.O. visited the house, both Balram Murty and K. Krishna Reddy were present in the house and when he examined Balram Murty, he informed that he was not paying any rent to the accused as accused is his brother-in-law. Krishna Reddy informed that he was paying rent@ Rs.150/- per month from 1979 to 1984 and @ Rs.200/- per month from 1985 until the check period. Accordingly the prosecution assessed the rental income from out of item No.2 of the property as Rs.17,600/- only. 47. The evidence of P.W. 14 and D.W.8 adduced on behalf of the accused goes to show that they have paid the rents amounting to Rs.32,700/- from 1979 to 1986. Though there was no documentary evidence on either side, the Court below inclined to accept the rental income for item No.2 as Rs.32,700/based on the evidence of D.W.14 and 8 from 1979 to 1986. The Court below refused to take any rental income from 1974 to 1978 for a period of four years. According to the accused, he was getting rent @ Rs.200/ - per month from 1974 to 1978. The Court below refused to take any rental income from 1974 to 1978 for a period of four years. According to the accused, he was getting rent @ Rs.200/ - per month from 1974 to 1978. The said Balram Murty was examined by the Investigating Officer, to whom he has stated that he was not paying any rent as he is the brother-in-law of the accused. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept that the accused received any rents from his brother-in-law during 1974 to 1978 in the absence' of any oral evidence of Balarama Murthy or any other documentary evidence. Accordingly the rental income of item No.2 of the Income as arrived by the Court below for Rs.32,700/- is confirmed. ITEM NOS. 3 TO 9 OF THE INCOME: 48. Item Nos. 3 to 9 is the income of D.W.13, i.e., wife of the accused, and for the very same reasons which was assigned in respect of the items/of assets belonging to the accused, these items of income have to be treated as the income derived by P.W.13 only from out of her assets and not the accused. Therefore, these items cannot be treated as the income of the accused and they are accordingly deleted from the income of the accused. I shall now deal with these items separately hereunder. ITEM NOS. 4 TO 6 OF THE INCOME: 49. The incomes shown at item Nos.4 to 6 relate to the sale of agricultural lands by the wife of the accused. The said agricultural lands were treated as the assets of D.W.13 and the income derived from the said lands is already treated as the income of the wife of the accused. Therefore, the said income cannot be treated as the income of the accused and accordingly the income shown at items 4 to 6 are also deleted from the income of the accused. ITEM NO.7 OF THE INCOME: 50. Item No.7 is the stree dhana of D.W.13, gifted by her father and therefore, the income derived from out of item No.7 belongs to the wife of the accused and not of the accused and accordingly item No.7 of the income is deleted from the income of the accused. ITEM NO.8 OF THE INCOME: 51. Item No.7 is the stree dhana of D.W.13, gifted by her father and therefore, the income derived from out of item No.7 belongs to the wife of the accused and not of the accused and accordingly item No.7 of the income is deleted from the income of the accused. ITEM NO.8 OF THE INCOME: 51. Admittedly, the land from of which the income shown at Item No.8 is derived, belongs to the wife of the accused and therefore, the said income derived from out of the agricultural lands of the wife of the accused is also deleted from the income of the accused. ITEM NO.9 OF THE INCOME: 52. Out of the total extent of Ac. 8.20 cents of agricultural land purchased, an extent of Ac. 1.14 cents of land is purchased in the name of the son of the accused. Taking Ex.P-148 as the basis, the prosecution estimated the agricultural income for the said extent of Ac. 1.14 cents of land at Rs.1,500/ - to Rs.2,000/ - per acre. Disputing the said estimation, the accused contended that even if the said estimates coupled with the evidence of P.Ws. 21 and 22 is taken to be correct, then the agricultural yield per acre would be 35 to 40 bags of paddy, i.e., about 30 quintals of paddy per acre. The admitted rate of paddy was about Rs.174/-perquintal and that on that basis, if the agricultural income is estimated for the Ac. 1.14 cents of land, then the total yield comes to nearly 34 quintals of paddy and the value of thereof works out to Rs.5,916/ - (Rs.174x34quintals). Further, the prosecution estimated the agricultural expenditure at Rs.2,000/ -. But, according to the accused, it was only Rs.700/-. Having regard to the fact that the extent of land is only about one acre and odd, a sum of Rs.1,000/- per annum (or Rs.3,000/ for three years) may be taken as the reasonable amount which could have been spent towards agricultural expenditure and if a sum of Rs.3,000/-, representing the expenditure for three years, is deducted from out of the total yield, the net agricultural income derived from Ac. 1.14 cents of land relating to item No.9 of the income works out to Rs.14,848/-. 1.14 cents of land relating to item No.9 of the income works out to Rs.14,848/-. As matter of fact, more or similar income which was shown by the wife of the accused in her Income Tax assessment was also accepted by the Income Tax Department and therefore, the income arrived on item No.9 in respect of agricultural land in the name of the son of the accused is fair and reasonable. ITEM No.10 OF THE INCOME: 53. Item No.10 of the income relates to the item No.1 of the assets and the rental income in regard to item No.1 is Rs.47,100/- and the same is not disputed. It is accordingly treated as the income of the accused. 54. Thus the total income on items Nos. 1, 2, 9 (part) and 10 is arrived at Rs.2,66,559-53 ps. ADDITIONAL INCOME OF THE ACCUSED ITEM NO.1 OF THE ADDITIONAL INCOME: 55. This item relates to the salary said to have been received by the accused before joining into Government service. Even assuming that he has earned a total salary of Rs.7,117/-, the said amount was hardly sufficient to meet his expenditure and therefore, I am not inclined to accept that he has saved the said item No.1 of the additional income and accordingly it cannot be said that an amount of Rs.7,117/- was in the hands of the accused. ITEM NO.2 OF THE ADDITIONAL INCOME: 56. Item No.2 is relating to the salary of the wife of the accused, i.e., D.W.13, which was already taken into account while calculating her assets and therefore, the said item cannot be taken and the same is accordingly deleted. ITEM NO.3 OF THE ADDITIONAL INCOME: 57. Item No.3 is the cash gift said to have been received by the accused from his grand father at the time of his marriage. The cash gift, gold and silver gifts received by the wife of the accused, were already treated as the assets of the wife of the accused. But, the so called cash gift said to have been received by the accused is not shown by him anywhere and, therefore, I am not inclined to accept the said additional income relating to item No.3 as the income of the accused. ITEM NO.4 OF THE ADDITIONAL INCOME: 58. Item No.4 is the sale price of four gold bangles. But, the so called cash gift said to have been received by the accused is not shown by him anywhere and, therefore, I am not inclined to accept the said additional income relating to item No.3 as the income of the accused. ITEM NO.4 OF THE ADDITIONAL INCOME: 58. Item No.4 is the sale price of four gold bangles. The said income belongs to the wife of the accused but not of the accused. Therefore, this item of the additional income is treated as the income of the wife of the accused and not of the accused. ITEM NO.5 OF THE ADDITIONAL INCOME: 59. The part of item No.5 was already treated as the income of the wife of the accused and therefore it cannot be treated as income of the accused. ITEM NO.6 OF THE ADDITIONAL INCOME: 60. Item No.6 is also relating to the wife of the accused which cannot be treated as the income of the accused. ITEM No.7 OF THE ADDITIONAL INCOME: 61. Item No.7 of the additional income is not disputed and the said amount of Rs.22,852-35 ps. is accepted as additional income of the accused. ITEM NO.8 OF THE ADDITIONAL INCOME: 62. Item No.8 relates to the interest accrued on the deposit made in respect of Jubilee Hills House site, which was already treated as the asset of the wife of the accused and therefore, it cannot be treated as the additional income of the accused. ITEM NO.9 OF THE ADDITIONAL INCOME: 63. Item No.9 of the additional income relates to the cash gift received by the wife of the accused, which was already treated as the income of his wife and the same is cannot be treated as income of the accused. ITEM No.10 OF THE ADDITIONAL INCOME: 64. Item No.10 of the additional income relates to the gifts received by wife of the accused from her relatives and the same is shown by her in her income tax returns. Therefore, the same cannot be treated as the additional income of the accused. ITEM No.11 OF THE ADDITIONAL INCOME: 65. Admittedly, the joint family immovable properties were divided under Ex. D-6 and movable properties were divided under Ex.D-113. As per Ex.D-113, which is a partition deed relating to moveable properties of the joint family, the accused received an amount of Rs.27,000/- and 33 sovereigns of gold. ITEM No.11 OF THE ADDITIONAL INCOME: 65. Admittedly, the joint family immovable properties were divided under Ex. D-6 and movable properties were divided under Ex.D-113. As per Ex.D-113, which is a partition deed relating to moveable properties of the joint family, the accused received an amount of Rs.27,000/- and 33 sovereigns of gold. A perusal of the said partition deed in respect of moveable properties discloses that the accused has received proportionately larger portions of cash and gold, which is not believable, therefore, I am not inclined to believe that the accused received Rs.27,000/- cash from out of the joint family property and accordingly the said item No.11 of the additional income is rejected. ITEM NO.12 OF ADDITIONAL INCOME: 66. Admittedly, the accused got an extent of Ac.1.25 cents of agricultural land in survey No.286/2 and 285 situated in Harshapally village, which is an ancestral property, in partition vide partition deed Ex.D-6. Therefore, I am of the view that he might have derived some agricultural income from out of the said ancestral property. In the preceding paragraphs, in respect of similar land, this court held that the annual yield per acre of land is 30 quintals and the admitted value thereof is Rs.174/- per quintal. I am inclined to apply the similar analogy in respect of the land in question also while calculating the annual agricultural income and taking the said calculation as basis, the annual agricultural income of the land in question is estimated at Rs.5,870/-. The accused got this property in the year 1982 and therefore from then onwards until the I check period, he might have derived a total income of Rs.28,986/- from the land in question. About tour years he got the agricultural income on Ac. 1-14 cents and he has shown that the agricultural income as Rs. 13,215/- which can be accepted without any hesitation. Accordingly, Rs.13,215/- is added as additional income under item No.12. ITEM No.13 OF THE ADDITIONAL INCOME: 67. Item No.13 of additional income relates to the rental income from the 1/3rd share of the house bearing No.9 1213 situated at Balaramunipet, Machilipatnam, which fell to the share of the accused as per Ex.D-6, registered Partition Deed, dated 20-6-1982. Accordingly, Rs.13,215/- is added as additional income under item No.12. ITEM No.13 OF THE ADDITIONAL INCOME: 67. Item No.13 of additional income relates to the rental income from the 1/3rd share of the house bearing No.9 1213 situated at Balaramunipet, Machilipatnam, which fell to the share of the accused as per Ex.D-6, registered Partition Deed, dated 20-6-1982. It is the case of the accused that after getting the said portion under Ex.D-6, he has let out the same to one Koteshwar Rao from 1-7-1982 to 31-3-1984 on a monthly rent of Rs.300/-. From 1-4-1984 till the end of check period the same was let out to D.W.19-KrishnaMohan, a businessman, on a monthly rent of Rs.350/. Thus the accused stated that he has received a total amount of Rs.16,800/- towards rents from the portion of the said Machilipatnam house. D.W. 19 clearly spoke about the rents relating to the said house for which there is no contra evidence adduced by the prosecution. Though the accused stated that he 1Nas receiving monthly rents @ Rs. 300/- during the period 1-7-1982 to 31-3-1984 and @ Rs.350/- from 1-4-1984 till the end of check, I am of the opinion that the said rates are clearly on higher side in a town like Machilipatnam. In Machilipatnam, the demand for rental accommodation is not so high as that of any other district head quarter. Therefore, the rental value of the house in question, which is sought to be projected by the accused, in my opinion, is on higher side. However, no documentary evidence is produced in this respect by either side. In the absence of any documentary evidence, it is not possible for this court to come to a definite conclusion about the actual rent that could have been derived by the accused at that point of time. In view of the non-availability of documentary evidence in this respect, a sum of Rs.150/-permonthfrom 1-7-1982 to 31-3-1984 (Rs. 150 x 21 months = 3,150/-) and @ Rs.200/per month from 1-4-1984 till the date of Check period (200 x 30 months = 6,000/-) could be fixed as the fair and reasonable monthly rent. Thus, a total sum of Rs.9,150/- is estimated as additional income. Accordingly an amount of Rs. 9,150/- is treated as additional income under item No.13. ITEM No.14 OF THE ADDITIONAL INCOME: 68. Thus, a total sum of Rs.9,150/- is estimated as additional income. Accordingly an amount of Rs. 9,150/- is treated as additional income under item No.13. ITEM No.14 OF THE ADDITIONAL INCOME: 68. It is the contention of the accused that his father used to give cash gift of Rs.500/- every year to him, constituting the present item. But, this story set up by the accused appears to be somewhat unnatural and unbelievable because, during the period in question, the accused was having sufficient income. Therefore, the explanation which is sought to be given by the accused for this item of additional income is not at all convincing. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept item No.14 of the additional income. ITEM No.15 OF THE ADDITIONAL INCOME: 69. Traveling Allowances and Dearness Allowance cannot be treated as income of the accused and the same is rejected. EXPENDITURE ITEM NO.1 OF THE EXPENDITURE: 70. Item No.1 of the expenditure relates to the household expenditure. Admittedly, the expenditure during check period is estimated at Rs.1,25,292/- by the Court below. The method of arriving the family expenditure is not disputed by the accused except contending that there is a double entry while calculating the total amount of the expenditure. According to the accused, Educational expenditure of the son and daughter was taken under item No.12 of the expenditure and an amount of Rs.35,079-90ps. was added as expenditure of the accused. This amount is not disputed, but it is stated that although his son studied in v.s. St. John's Higher Secondary School, Gannavaram, Krishna District, a sum of Rs.1,25,292/- was calculated as the family expenditure, treating as if he studied staying at the house only. 71. While taking into consideration the, household expenditure adopted by P.W.15, the Accounts Officer working in the Anti Corruption Department under Ex.P-61, the unit of the expenditure of the son in the family is deducted, which is quantified at Rs.18,000/-. Accordingly Rs.18,000/- has to be deducted from out the total family expenditure of Rs.1,25,292/-, which comes to Rs.1,07,292/-. ITEM NOS. 2 AND 3 OF THE EXPENDITURE: 72. Item Nos. 2 and 3, which relates to the LIC premium payment in the name of the accused, are not disputed. ITEM NO.4 OF THE EXPENDITURE: 73. Accordingly Rs.18,000/- has to be deducted from out the total family expenditure of Rs.1,25,292/-, which comes to Rs.1,07,292/-. ITEM NOS. 2 AND 3 OF THE EXPENDITURE: 72. Item Nos. 2 and 3, which relates to the LIC premium payment in the name of the accused, are not disputed. ITEM NO.4 OF THE EXPENDITURE: 73. Item No.4 of the expenditure relates to the LIC policy premium of the wife of the accused and accordingly the same is deleted as expenditure of the accused. ITEM NO.5 OF THE EXPENDITURE: 74. There is no dispute with regard to item No.5 of the expenditure, which relates to the payment of advance for booking of Priya scooter in M/s. Automotive Manufacturers Limited, Visakhapatnam. ITEM NO.6 OF THE EXPENDITURE: 75. Item No.6 is the interest amount paid in respect of the loan taken by the accused on the Fixed Deposit Receipts for purchase of agricultural land in the name of the daughter and I have already held that the said property in the name of the daughter was purchased from out of the income of the accused and therefore, the interest of Rs.18,581/- was rightly treated as expenditure of the accused. ITEM NO.7 OF THE EXPENDITURE: 76. There is no dispute with regard to the item No.7 of the expenditure, which is loan repayment by the accused in Syndicate Bank, vajayawada, vide L.D.No. 75/83. ITEM NO.8 OF THE EXPENDITURE: 77. Item No.8 of relates to the expenditure on the stamp duty and registration of immoveable properties. The total amount spent is Rs.28,293-55 ps., which includes the stamp duty and registration expenditure relating to the immoveable properties purchased by the wife, son and daughter of the accused. 78. For the reasons stated supra, the stamp duty and registration charges paid by the wife cannot be taken as the expenditure of the accused. 79. Similarly, the father of the accused A. Pichaiah purchased house property through document No.2548/70 for which he has paid stamp duty of Rs.427-50 ps. and Registration charges of Rs.51-50ps. The said amounts (totalling to Rs.479/ -) have also to be deleted from item No.8 of the expenditure. 80. Thus the expenditure on the stamp duty and registration charges for acquiring the assets in the name of his son and daughter spent by the accused is only Rs.5,136/- as against the expenditure of Rs.28,293/against item No.8 of the expenditure. ITEM NO.9 OF THE EXPENDITURE: 81. 80. Thus the expenditure on the stamp duty and registration charges for acquiring the assets in the name of his son and daughter spent by the accused is only Rs.5,136/- as against the expenditure of Rs.28,293/against item No.8 of the expenditure. ITEM NO.9 OF THE EXPENDITURE: 81. Item No.9 of the expenditure relates to the payment of house tax in the name of the accused, amounting to Rs.1,793/-, and the same is not disputed. ITEM No.10 OF THE-EXPENDITURE: 82. Item No.10 of the expenditure relates to house tax on LIC house belonging to the wife of the accused under item No.2 of the assets. Therefore, the said expenditure has to be deleted from the expenditure of the accused. ITEM No.11 OF THE EXPENDITURE: 83. Item No.11 relates to the house tax on item No.1 of the assets. As already stated, that item No.1 is treated as the property of the accused and therefore the expenditure with regard to that asset under item No.11 of the expenditure cannot be disputed. ITEM No.12 OF THE EXPENDITURE: 84. Item No.12 of the expenditure relates to the expenditure incurred towards the education of children and the' same is not disputed. ITEM No.13 OF THE EXPENDITURE: 85. It relates to the marriage expenses. Rs.26,463/ - has been rightly taken as the expenditure of the accused. Though the wife of the accused has also shown in her Income Tax returns that she spent an amount of Rs.7,500/-, that amount must have been in addition to the expenditure of Rs.26,463/and, therefore, I am not inclined to reduce the marriage expenditure. ITEM No.14 OF THE EXPENDITURE: 86. Item No.14 of the expenditure incurred for digging bore-well by the wife of the accused. Therefore, the said amount of Rs.1,947-50ps. has to be deleted from the expenditure of the accused. ITEM NOS. 15 TO 20 OF THE EXPENDITURE: 87. Items No.15 to 20 of the expenditure are not disputed and the same are taken as expenditure of the accused. ITEM No.21 OF THE EXPENDITURE: 88. It is stated by the learned counsel for the accused that the said expenditure of Rs.25,800/- was incurred for maintenance of car bearing No.APW 3235 for a period of seven years. It is submitted that there is absolutely no record to show that the accused has spent the said amount. Admittedly, the car was purchased in the name of the daughter of the accused. It is submitted that there is absolutely no record to show that the accused has spent the said amount. Admittedly, the car was purchased in the name of the daughter of the accused. D.W.13, the wife of the accused, has not shown in her Income Tax returns any expenditure on the said car and therefore, it is obvious that the accused was only maintaining the said car for the said period and he has incurred expenditure thereon. The expenditure of maintenance of the car is coming to Rs.310/- per month and therefore, the Court below rightly took the said amount of Rs.25,800/- as expenditure incurred by the accused for a period of seven years in respect of item No.21 of the expenditure. ITEM No.22 OF THE EXPENDITURE: 89. Item No.22 of the expenditure relates to the payment of sist on Ac.8-02 cents of land. Out of Ac. 8.02 cents, an extent of Ac. 1.14 cents fell to the share of the accused and the expenditure incurred by the accused is payment of sist to that extent only has to be taken into consideration. An amount of Rs.l,061-40ps. was paid towards sist for Ac. 8.02 cents of land and for Ac.1.14 cents of land, the sist amount comes to Rs.147/-. Therefore, only an amount of Rs.147/towards expenditure of sist relating to Ac.1.14 cents of land in the name of the accused has to be taken as the expenditure of the accused. ITEM No.23 OF THE EXPENDITURE: 90. Item No.23 represents the amount of sist paid in respect of Ac. 1.02 cents of agricultural land belonging to the stree dhana of D.W.13. Therefore, an amount of Rs.350/paid towards sist cannot be taken as the expenditure of the accused. Accordingly the said amount of Rs.350/ - under item No.23 is deleted. ITEM No.24 OF THE EXPENDITURE: 91. Item No.24 of the expenditure relates to the sist paid in respect of Ac. 7.83 cents of land by the wife of the accused. The said land was her self-acquired property and she alone paid the sist amount and therefore the same cannot be taken as the expenditure of the accused. Accordingly, item No.24 of the expenditure is deleted. 92. Thus, from the above discussion, it would emerge that the accused was in possession of total assets worth Rs.4,54,84625 ps; the total income and additional income of the accused is Rs.3,11,776-88ps. Accordingly, item No.24 of the expenditure is deleted. 92. Thus, from the above discussion, it would emerge that the accused was in possession of total assets worth Rs.4,54,84625 ps; the total income and additional income of the accused is Rs.3,11,776-88ps. and the total expenditure incurred by the accused is Rs.2,45,712-68ps. 93. If the total expenditure is deducted from the total income and additional income, the net savings would come to Rs.67,06420ps. whereas the total assets of the accused are assessed at Rs.4,54,846.25 ps. Thus, a sum of Rs.3,87,782-05ps. (Rs.4,54,846.25 minus Rs.67,064.20) is found to be in excess of the known sources of income of the accused, for which the accused failed to account for satisfactorily. 94. The learned counsel for the accused submits that the court below added 20% of the cushion to the total income of the accused. Though this court in certain cases gave 20% of the rebate, the Supreme Court refused to give 20% of the margin on the total income aI1dconfirmed the 10% of the cushion which was added to the total income of the accused in the case of M. Krishna Reddyv. State of A.P. 1993 Crl.L.J 308. Therefore, I am of the view that accused is entitled for 10% margin on the total income. Accordingly, 10% of the margin is given on the total income which comes to Rs.31,177-68ps. If the 10% is added to the total income, the amount comes to Rs.3:42,954-68ps. 95. Thus the total income of the accused is Rs.3,11,776-88ps. and after adding 10% margin on the total income, it works out to Rs.3,42,954-56ps. If the expenditure is deducted from the total income after adding 10% of the margin, it comes to Rs.98,24188ps. The total assets of the accused is arrived at Rs.4,54,846-25ps. and thus the net disproportionate assets of the accused are Rs.3,57,604-37ps. 96. Before going to the next contention as regards the power of confiscation of the State in respect of the disproportionate assets (movable and immovable) acquired from the unknown sources of income of the accused, I am of the opinion that the Anti Corruption Bureau is not adapting the proper method in arriving at the net value of assets acquired by the accused from his known source of income. If a property is acquired from the unknown source of income of the accused, the income derived there-from cannot be added to the income of the accused. If a property is acquired from the unknown source of income of the accused, the income derived there-from cannot be added to the income of the accused. If a property is acquired from unknown sources of income and the income derived therefrom is a substantial amount if added to the income of the accused, it will be difficult to come to the correct conclusion as regards the disproportionate assets. The authorities ere also adding the income of the property derived from the properties acquired from the disproportionate income, which is, in my view is not correct. While dealing with the income, expenditure and assets of the accused, I am of the opinion that they should calculate the pecuniary known source of income after deducing the expenditure and consider whether a particular property acquired at the earliest point of time was the property acquired from out of the funds of known source or unknown source and likewise. If a property acquired from out of the known source of income, the income derived thereon can be added to the income of the accused. But if a particular property is acquired from out of the unknown source of income, the income derived thereon cannot be shown as the income of the accused. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the correct method would be to determine the actual disproportionate assets of the accused, the actual calculation of the income after deducting the expenditure and the investment made in acquiring particular properties date wise as per balance sheet of income, expenditure and available resources from his known legal sources of income in acquiring the assets. 97. As regards the order of confiscation of the disproportionate assets acquired from his unknown sources of income, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ accused submits that no doubt, under Section 452 of the Criminal Procedure Code, on the conclusion of the trial, the Court is empowered to confiscate any property in respect of which an offence is appeared to have been committed or which has been used for the commission of offence. 98. In the instant case, the Court below invoked Section 452 Code of Criminal Procedure and ordered confiscation of the disproportionate assets, but since, the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance was not invoked and the properties were not attached under the Ordinance, no confiscation can be ordered without recourse to the said Ordinance. 98. In the instant case, the Court below invoked Section 452 Code of Criminal Procedure and ordered confiscation of the disproportionate assets, but since, the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance was not invoked and the properties were not attached under the Ordinance, no confiscation can be ordered without recourse to the said Ordinance. He further submits that the items, which were ordered to be confiscated by the Court below: were not in the custody and control of the Court below at the relevant time and, therefore, they cannot be confiscated. It is further submitted that item No.1, 3, 5, 8 and 9 which are held to be the assets of the accused are immoveable properties and there is no evidence that they are available for confiscation on the date of the judgment of the court below as the said properties were not attached under the Ordinance. He has made an attempt to distinguish the judgment of the Apex Court in Mirza Iqbal Hussain v. State of A.P. AIR 1983 SC 69, as in the said case two Fixed Deposit Receipts for a sum of Rs.5,000/- were seized by the police and produced before the Court and, therefore, they were in the control and custody of the Court at the time of passing of the order of confiscation. Under Section 452 of Code of Criminal Procedure the property regarding which any offence is alleged to have been committed alone is liable to be confiscated. Under Section 5(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Court below has not given any finding in respect of any particular item of property as a disproportionate asset to the known source of income of the accused. In the instant case, all the assets which were-possessed by the accused over a particular period have been short-listed and after assessing the total income therefrom and the total expenditure during the period, the Court determined the extent of the assets which are disproportionate to his known sources of income and to that extent only the assets are liable for confiscation. 99. He further submits that what is to be confiscated is the amount or the value of the property which is found to be disproportionate as on the crucial date, but not the incremental value of such property from the crucial date till the date of judgment. 99. He further submits that what is to be confiscated is the amount or the value of the property which is found to be disproportionate as on the crucial date, but not the incremental value of such property from the crucial date till the date of judgment. He finally submits that no offence is committed in respect of the assets of the accused, which are found to be the assets disproportionate to the known source of his income. He further submits that there is no evidence that any particular property is purchased from unknown source of income and, therefore, the amount which is found to be disproportionate alone can be confiscated, which amount can be realized by sale of any of the property or otherwise. Unless there is definite evidence as regard the availability of the properties they cannot be ordered to be confiscated. 100. Under Section 5(1) (e) of the P.C. Act, if the Public Servant or any person on his behalf is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession, for which the Public Servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income, is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct which is punishable under Section 5(2) of the Act for a term not less than one year which may extend up to seven years and shall also liable for fine. 101. Under Section 5(3-B) of the Act where the sentence of fine is imposed under subsection (2) or where the conviction is for the offence under clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 the Court in fixing the fine amount shall take into consideration the amount or the value of the property or the pecuniary resources of the property, which the accused person has obtained by committing the offence or unable to account for satisfactorily. The pecuniary resources or the property of the disproportionate assets to the known sources of income of the accused has to be taken into consideration while imposing a fine amount under Sec. 5(2) of the Act. 102. The Court below in the instant case, instead of imposing fine in view of the above, ordered confiscation of the properties of the accused. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the disproportionate assets can be ordered to be confiscated or not? 103. 102. The Court below in the instant case, instead of imposing fine in view of the above, ordered confiscation of the properties of the accused. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the disproportionate assets can be ordered to be confiscated or not? 103. The properties, which are all held to be assets of the accused are the subject matter of the charge-sheet for the offence under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (e) of the P.C. Act. The allegation against the accused is that the accused acquired the said assets in the name of his father, daughter, son and the wife during the check period and he has failed to satisfactorily account for the pecuniary resources and for the said disproportionate assets. The attempt of the learned counsel to distinguish the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mirza Iqbal Hussain stated (3) supra, in my opinion is incorrect. The apex court held in the said case that the property found in possession of the accused was disproportionate to his known sources of income which formed the subject mater of the charge under Sec. 5(1) (e) of the Act and therefore, the same is liable to be confiscate. It is further held that Sec. 4(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that: "all offences under any law other than the offences under Indian Penal Code, shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences." 104. It is clear from the said provision that, insofar as the offences under the laws other than the Indian Penal Code are concerned, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure apply in their full force subject to any specific or contrary provisions made by the Law under which the offence is investigated or tried. 105. The Criminal Procedure Code confers the power of confiscation as contemplated under Section 452 of the Code. Under Section 452 of the Code the Court, on concluding the trial of a criminal case, may order for confiscation of property. Under the P.C. Act there is no specific contrary provision on the subject matter of the confiscation. 105. The Criminal Procedure Code confers the power of confiscation as contemplated under Section 452 of the Code. Under Section 452 of the Code the Court, on concluding the trial of a criminal case, may order for confiscation of property. Under the P.C. Act there is no specific contrary provision on the subject matter of the confiscation. None of the provisions of the P.C. Act provides for confiscation or prescribes the mode by which the order of confiscation may be passed. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 being totally silent on the question of confiscation, the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are applied in their full force with the result the Court trying the offence under the P.C. Act, may have the power to pass an order of confiscation by reasons of the provisions contained under Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Thus the Apex Court distinguished the order of the confiscation in passing order of the said case though they were two Fixed Deposit Receipts, it makes no difference whether they are Fixed Deposit Receipts or the immoveable properties. 106. Admittedly in the instant case the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance was not invoked, which has no relevance because Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance provides for no punishment or penalty and all that it provides is attachment of money or property procured by the offence or any other property of the offender, if the above property is not available and the purpose of attachment is to prevent the disposal and the concealment of such property. 107. In the instant case the property in question is the subject matter of the charges framed against the accused and therefore, there was no need or necessity to attach any of the immoveable properties during the pendency of the trial and therefore, the Court below rightly invoked, Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for confiscating the disproportionate assets of the accused. 108. The Apex Court in the case of K. Pannuswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu (2001) 6 SCC 674 , upheld the confiscation of the immoveable properties of the disproportionate assets of the accused therein, which were directed by the trial court, as confirmed by the High Court. In the said case the trial Court after convicting the accused directed confiscation of the pecuniary resources and properties to the extent of the disproportionate assets. In the said case the trial Court after convicting the accused directed confiscation of the pecuniary resources and properties to the extent of the disproportionate assets. The High Court maintained the order of confiscation in respect of the assets of the appellant therein and his wife and daughters, which was confirmed by the Apex Court. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt that the disproportionate assets, even if they are immoveable properties, can be ordered to be confiscated. 109. The total assets of the accused standing in the name of his father, himself, daughter and son are Rs.4,54,846-25ps and the disproportionate assets which arrived are only Rs.3,56,604-o37ps and therefore, the properties worth about 1,00,000/- can be retained standing either in the name of the accused or his father or son or daughter. 110. The court below ordered to confiscate the properties under Item Nos.1 to 12, which are immoveable properties and the properties under Item Nos. 13 to 23 being moveable properties. It is not known whether they are still available for confiscation or not and properties under Item Nos. 1 to 12, which are more or less equal to that of disproportionate assets, are ordered to be confiscated. 111. Accordingly, item Nos. 3, 5, 9, 10, 15, 16 and 21 the value of which is about Rs.1,00,926/-, are permitted to be retained by the accused, i.e., his legal heirs. The other properties, which are disproportionate assets of the accused to his known sources of income, are ordered to be confiscated. 112. The items that are directed to be confiscated are item Nos. 1, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23. Except item Nos. 1 and 3, which are directed to be confiscated, all other items are moveable properties. It is further directed that in the event of unavailability of the moveable properties for confiscation and if the value of the said items, which are directed to be confiscated, is not deposited by the legal representatives of the accused, within two months from the date of receipt of this order it is open for the State to recover the said amount from out of the items that are permitted to be retained, either by sale or by confiscation. 113. As the accused died during the pendency of the appeal, the question of ordering imprisonment of the accused does not arise. 114. 113. As the accused died during the pendency of the appeal, the question of ordering imprisonment of the accused does not arise. 114. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed partly as indicated above.