ORAL JUDGMENT :- Consequent upon discreet enquiry conducted by Shri R. N. Wagh, Deputy Commissioner of Police/Superintendent of Police, Anti-corruption Bureau, Nagpur, the First Information Report was lodged against the accused. Investigation was conducted and a charge-sheet was filed. 2. According to prosecution, on account of all types of receipts, earnings of the family, expenditure, and investment done by the accused, the family of accused was found in possession of disproportionate assets worth Rs. 1,26,25000/- and accordingly charge under section 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was framed against the accused. 3. The accused has not admitted the evidence brought against him, and hence prosecution has led voluminous evidence. 4. Prosecution has examined 42 witnesses commencing from discreet enquiry into sources, receipts, expenses, investments etc., lodgment of First Information Report, Search Panchanamas, Sale/purchase transactions, to sanction. 5. The evidence of these forty-two witnesses is broadly classified as follows:- (a) PW 1 - Ramrao Wagh is the officer who conducted discreet enquiry and lodged First Information Report. (b) PW 39 - Anant Hanumantrao Jaltare has registered the First Information Report. PW 40 - Tulshiram Babarao Deotale (Investigating Officer), PW 42 - Pandurang Baburao Bamble (Second Investigating Officer) and PW 41 - Arvind Deorao Pande, who prepared and filed charge-sheet in Court, are police witnesses. (C) Two police witnesses to prove the use of Government vehicle for private purpose, and one witness who reached the cotton seed bags to the brother and father of the accused. (d) PW 37 - Prakash Kamlakar Pradhan is a witness of sanction. (e) Panch witnesses, who were present at the time of search, seizure, preparation of List of Assets, and (f) Another group of witnesses was examined to prove sale-purchase transactions of movables and immovables, to prove the investments and expenses. 6. After hearing both sides and appreciating entire evidence, the learned trial Court found that agricultural lands and other lands owned and obtained on "Batai" basis for cultivation and in possession since years, much prior to the period of enquiry had remained outside consideration though clues thereof were discovered in the material brought out in the discreet enquiry, searches etc. and the income from these sources was not taken into account at any point of time. Therefore, the trial Judge thus found that the prosecution had failed to take into account all these sources of income, and ordered acquittal. 7. and the income from these sources was not taken into account at any point of time. Therefore, the trial Judge thus found that the prosecution had failed to take into account all these sources of income, and ordered acquittal. 7. Heard oral submissions of learned APP Mrs. Khade for the appellant and learned Advocate Mr. Shashibhushan Wabane for the respondent, and has scrutinized oral and documentary evidence. 8. The appeal is filed on the foundation and argument that charge was proved, yet trial Court has not considered the facts. 9. According to learned Advocate Mr. Shashibhushan Wabane, in contrast with what is attempted by the prosecution, the effort of defence is to show that even if the evidence as brought by the prosecution is accepted without any question, yet considering the admission of prosecution witnesses, the presumption under section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act was not raised, or if raised, the same was fully and duly rebutted from the admissions given by prosecution witnesses themselves in their cross-examination. 10. According to him, this omission to consider the assets owned since the period prior to scrutiny is in spite that in the discreet enquiry and search, evidence of such antecedent assets had come in possession of the prosecution. He further urges that it is a case where had discreet enquiry itself been done properly and faithfully to the cause, the First Information Report itself could not have been lodged, let apart the case to reach the stage of filing charge-sheet and trial based thereon. 11. Learned Advocate for the respondent has placed reliance on following judgments to substantiate his contention:- (1) Krishnand Agnihotri vs. State of M.P., AIR 1977 SC 796 , (2) State of Maharashtra vs. Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar, AIR 1981 SC 1186 , (3) State of Maharashtra vs. Pollonji Darabshaw Daruwalla, AIR 1988 SC 88 , (4) P. Satyanarayan Murty vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1992)4 SCC 39 , (5) M. Krishna Reddy vs. State Deputy Supdt. of Police, Hyderabad, AIR 1993 SC 313 , (6) Purshottam Gopal Nanavare vs. State of Maharashtra, 1998 ALL MR (Cri) 1263, (7) Subhash Kharate vs. State of M P, 2000 Cri.L.J. 1178, (8) D. S. P Chennai vs. K Inbasagaran, 2006(2) Mh.LJ (SC) 399 = 2006 ALL MR (Cri) (SC) 304, (9) Budh Singh and ors. of Police, Hyderabad, AIR 1993 SC 313 , (6) Purshottam Gopal Nanavare vs. State of Maharashtra, 1998 ALL MR (Cri) 1263, (7) Subhash Kharate vs. State of M P, 2000 Cri.L.J. 1178, (8) D. S. P Chennai vs. K Inbasagaran, 2006(2) Mh.LJ (SC) 399 = 2006 ALL MR (Cri) (SC) 304, (9) Budh Singh and ors. vs. State of U.P, AIR 2006 SC 2500 , (10) V.N Ratheesh vs. State of Kerala, AIR 2006 SC 2667 , and (11) Umrao vs. State of Haryana and ors., AIR 2006 SC 2152 . 12. This Court has tested rival submissions and what reveals from the evidence is discussed hereinafter. 13. In the background of rival submissions indicated in foregoing paras in which the case has proceeded, and is now defended, this Court finds that it is totally unnecessary to deal with and discuss voluminous evidence of witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove the worth of assets in possession and source of the family of the accused. 14. It is seen from cross-examination of P.W.1-Mr. Ramrao Wagh (Exh. 32) that he has admitted in his evidence that:- (a) Seizure Panchanamas (Exhs. 35 and 36) reveal that certain lands were purchased by family members in past. It shall be convenient to refer by quotation relevant part thereof as below :- "10. Cross-exam by Shri S. K. Undal, Advocate, for the accused:- It is true that in the confidential enquiry it has come to my notice that only 15 acres of agricultural land was with the family of the accused before 1980. I had gone through the contents of Panchanama prepared at Parodi. That panchanama is on record at Ex. 35. In the document it is referred that Sr. No. 98 22 A 35 Gunthas was purchased by Shri Badhu Bhura Sabale from Chunnilal Dhansingh on 14-3-1952. That portion is marked as A in the document. In that Panchanama Ex. 35, at portion marked B, it is mentioned that in the year 1930-31 agricultural land 27 acres was purchased by Badhu Bhura Sabale. It is true that in this document at portion marked C it is mentioned that on 10-3-1971, 22 acres of agricultural land was taken on lease by Badhu Bhura from Shankar Bara." "11. Document Ex. 36 is shown to witness. At clause No. 42 it is mentioned that on 10-3-1965 of land Sr. It is true that in this document at portion marked C it is mentioned that on 10-3-1971, 22 acres of agricultural land was taken on lease by Badhu Bhura from Shankar Bara." "11. Document Ex. 36 is shown to witness. At clause No. 42 it is mentioned that on 10-3-1965 of land Sr. No. 97, 22 A 35 G land was leased on 10-3-1965 to Badhu Bhura. The contents are at portion marked A. Similarly in this document Ex. 36 at Clause No. 40 there is reference at 6A agricultural land from Sr. No. 97 was purchased on 14-3-1952 in the name of Badhu Bhura. These contents are at portion marked B. It is true that during my confidential enquiry could not come across with these documents. Because that I could not consider mcome source from these lands." (quoted from pages 128 and 129 of the appeal paper-book). (b) This witness further admits as follows :- "13. Income from cattles was only an estimate, did not go to the record of census of animals on 13th and 14th occasions. I cannot state whether in the year 1982 after census it was observed that family of accused was having 91 cattles, because I did not go through that report. I do agree that if the cattles shown in the report of the year 1982 and 1987, the income from cattles would have been increased. I cannot say whether from the period 1982-89 this family had income of Rs. 4,87,800/- from sale of milk of the cattles considered while census of animals. I cannot say whether this family had income of Rs. 91,500/- from milk sale from 1980-81. I cannot say whether this family had sale from manure of Rs. 1,06,000/- for the period 1980 to 89. It is true that in the enquiry I did not come across with the receipts referred at Sr. Nos. 93 to 102 on page No.6 of document Ex. 35 (list of the receipts). These contents are at portion marked D. Price of 52 Qts., rise as shown at Entry No. 126 on page No.7 of document Ex. 35 and price of Jawar of 200 Qts., referred at Entry No. 128 on page No.7 of document Ex. 35 were not under my consideration while preparing my report. 35 (list of the receipts). These contents are at portion marked D. Price of 52 Qts., rise as shown at Entry No. 126 on page No.7 of document Ex. 35 and price of Jawar of 200 Qts., referred at Entry No. 128 on page No.7 of document Ex. 35 were not under my consideration while preparing my report. These contents are respectively at portion marked E and F… " (making of sub-paragraph is done for convenience for reference). (quoted from page 129 of the appeal paper-book). (c) he has only calculated available land to be 15 acres and calculated income thereof for a period of scrutiny, i.e., of eight years, to be Rs. 2,00,455/-, meaning thereby that annual income of land would be Rs. 1670-00 per year per acre. 15. Other witness, namely P.W. 42 has admitted in his evidence that : (a) He has failed to take into account the income from the cattle, sale of cattles, value of dung manure which the family was fetching. (b) He has then admitted in paragraph No. 17 of his cross-examination that Dr. Rathod and Dr. Pund had told him that between 1983 and 1986, family of the accused was having income from the business of milk and cattle to the tune ofRs. 3,19,400-00 and that he agrees to this possibility. (c) For the period 1987-89, he then agrees that the income could be Rs. 1,58,400-00, Rs. 40,000-00 from cow dung and Rs. 12,000-00 from she-goats, about Rs. 1800/- to Rs. 2000/- from sale of bulls between 1982 and 1983. 16. It is seen that the evidence of Sanctioning Authority, i.e., P.W. 37 (Exh. 189) - Prakash Kamlakar Pradhan admitted in his evidence that :_ (a) He did not consider as to how much land was in possession of Shri Badhu Bhura Sable prior to 1st May, 1980, though he claims to have gone through Panchanarna of seizure of house at Palodi. (b) He has failed to take into account the possibility of income from cattle between the period 1982 and 1987, while he applied mind for granting sanction. (c) He does know as to what is the foundation of annual income of the land per acre was expected to be Rs. 1670.45. 17. According to learned Advocate for the respondent, even on accepting and applying the annual income whichever is accepted by the prosecution witness, i.e., Rs. (c) He does know as to what is the foundation of annual income of the land per acre was expected to be Rs. 1670.45. 17. According to learned Advocate for the respondent, even on accepting and applying the annual income whichever is accepted by the prosecution witness, i.e., Rs. 1670.45 per acre per year, even then on undisputed and unexplored possession of 71.35 acres of agricultural land by the family, annual income of the family of the accused was Rs. 11,91,545-00. 18. According to learned Advocate for the respondent, the prosecution has omitted such a large chunk from the available source of income, disclosed source alone, and this omitted source which alone would be the strongest ground to indicate that the prosecution has proceeded on total incomplete and hence erroneous foundation as to "known sources." 19. This Court is, therefore, satisfied that the prosecution had merrily gone and remained content with allegation of excess-surplus assets being of Rs. 1,26,250-00, and has failed to take into account income from agricultural lands, which was itself a largest source of income which too was a disclosed source. 20. The matters explored in cross-examination of P.W. 37 do suggest that even while granting the sanction, the Sanctioning Authority was not sure as to what was the exact amount of disproportionate assets, since the income from known sources was in plurality of what was actually reckoned. 21. Admission of the witnesses as to failure to reckon disclosed assets in possession for years prior to period of enquiry speaks in volumes that it was a case of failure to formulate opinion of disproportionate assets well before lodging the First Information Report. 22. Once it is demonstrated that the very lodgment of First Information Report was based on consideration of only part of information, no other result than acquittal could be secured. 23. In the background of facts discussed above, it is not necessary to discuss the judgments cited at bar. 24. The order of acquittal, subject-matter, is, therefore, based on proper reasons, and is passed after due consideration of record. 25. Since prosecution case fails on facts, it is not necessary to discuss citations relied upon by learned Advocate for the respondent. 26. In the result, appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.