JUDGMENT Mr. K.C. Puri, J.:- Krishan Gopal has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 11.4.1997 and order dated 17.4.1997 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala vide which the appellant stood convicted under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act ( in short – the Act) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that accused Krishan Gopal remained Panchayat Secretary/Gram Sachiv from the year 1965 to 31.12.1983 and during this period his net salary came to Rs.67,509/08 P but during the above said period he purchased the property in his own name, in the name of his wife and in the name of his brothers on his behalf worth Rs.1,23,250/- over which he spent Rs.16,805/- as stamp duty. Thus, the accused Krishan Gopal was found to be in possession of property worth Rs.1,40,655/-. After giving the concession of 40% saving from his lawful income, the amount available to him was Rs.27,003/62 P but he purchased properties worth Rs.1,40,655/- which he could not satisfactorily explain and was disproportionate to his known sources of income from the year 1965 to 31.12.1983. 3. It has been stated that preliminary enquiry was conducted by Sat Parkash, Deputy Superintendent of Police, State Vigilance Bureau, Karnal, who submitted his report dated 16.7.1992 Ex. PM, which formed the basis of FIR. It has been further stated that the Director, State Vigilance Bureau (Haryana), Chandigarh, forwarded Enquiry No.14 dated 26.11.1990 to the Superintendent of Police, State Vigilance Bureau, Karnal, which was entrusted to Ranjit Singh, Inspector, who submitted his report which was forwarded to the quarter concerned vide letter No. 7586 dated 29.7.1991. Under the orders of the Government, the enquiry was held by Shri Shiv Shakti Rao, Deputy Superintendent of Police and Sh. Sat Parkash, Deputy Superintendent of Police of State Vigilance Bureau,. During enquiry, it was found that accused Krishan Gopal, Secretary/Sachiv, Gram Panchayat, Sadhaura, purchased land vide registered sale deed dated 31.3.1989 for Rs.25,000/- from one Gian Devi. Under the orders of the Government, the enquiry was held by Shri Shiv Shakti Rao, Deputy Superintendent of Police and Sh. Sat Parkash, Deputy Superintendent of Police of State Vigilance Bureau,. During enquiry, it was found that accused Krishan Gopal, Secretary/Sachiv, Gram Panchayat, Sadhaura, purchased land vide registered sale deed dated 31.3.1989 for Rs.25,000/- from one Gian Devi. Accused Krishan Gopal, further purchased 16 marlas of land in Patti Acharjan vide sale deed dated 20.10.1983 for Rs.9850/- The accused told that he purchased the land from the savings of his salary and from the income of his wife who was well versed in stitching/embroidery. During the period from 1983 to 1990 accused Krishan Gopal acquired immovable property in the name of his wife Vijay Kumari worth Rs.1,10,000/-. He acquired property in his own name worth Rs.51,850/-. He also acquired immovable property worth Rs.55,550/-in the name of his brother Bharat Bhushan. Similarly, he purchased property for Rs.9000/- in the name of his brother Ramji Dass and another property in the name of his ‘Bhabhi’ wife of his brother Ramji Dass for Rs.13,500/- In this way, the total assets worth Rs.2,39,850/- were acquired by him either in his own name or in the name of his wife or benami in the names of his brothers and bhabhi. He spent Rs.28,825/- on stamp duty. Total expenditure incurred by him on the property was Rs.2,68,675/-. Accused told to the enquiry officer that the property which he purchased for Rs.45,000/- in the year 1983 in the name of his wife was sold by him in the year 1988 for Rs.60,000/- and the property which he purchased in the name of his wife in the year 1983 for Rs.18,000/- was sold by him in the year 1984 for Rs.21,600/-. Similarly, he disclosed that the property which he purchased in the year 1983 in his own name for Rs.17,000/- was sold by him in the year 1984 for Rs.22,000/-. The house which he purchased in 1989 for Rs.25,000/- was sold by him for Rs.26,000/- after one month. Accused purchased and sold the property. Accused disclosed that he had purchased the same out of his savings and his wife’s income from stitching/embroidery. After the inquiry, he was asked as to from where he originally acquired so much amount and the accused replied that he had submitted details in the earlier inquiry No.4 of 1985. Accused purchased and sold the property. Accused disclosed that he had purchased the same out of his savings and his wife’s income from stitching/embroidery. After the inquiry, he was asked as to from where he originally acquired so much amount and the accused replied that he had submitted details in the earlier inquiry No.4 of 1985. The previous enquiry was also perused wherein also he had told sources of savings from his salary. It was found in the enquiry that the accused had earned profit for Rs.26,000/- by sale of his house. After deducting this amount, the accused was found to have acquired immoveable property worth Rs.2,42,675/- which he could not account for. During enquiry, he did not submit the details of income of his wife. It was found by the enquiry officer that no evidence was produced to show that wife of the accused-appellant earned any such amount from her stitching/embroidery work nor any bank account was produced in which such heavy amount have been shown. During his service from 1965 to 1990, the accused received total salary of Rs.1,65,000/-. Giving the benefit of 40% saving, the amount available to him was calculated at Rs.66,000/- whereas he had acquired immoveable property worth Rs.1,76,675/- either in his own name or in the name of his wife or Benami in the names of his brothers. The property assessed was found to be disproportionate to his known sources of income. During investigation, documents were taken into possession. The Police recorded the statements of the witnesses. After completion of the investigation, the challan was presented. 4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution were supplied to the accused. Charge under Section 13 (1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was framed on 2.7.1993, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined Tilak Raj (PW-1), Sunder Lal Lamberdar (PW-2), Shamsher Chand (PW- 3), Bharat Bhushan (PW-4), Om Parkash (PW-5), Lajja Ram (PW-6), Sudesh Kumar (PW-7), Balkar Singh (PW-8), DSP Sat Parkash (PW-9), Narinder Singh (PW-10), DSP Kartar Singh (PW-11), Raghunath Rai (PW-12), Buta Ram (PW-13), Buta Ram Lamberdar (PW-14), Mohan Lal Accountant, Chetan Dass (PW-15), Chetan Dass (PW-16), Pushkar Dutt (PW-17), Kasturi Lal (PW-18), Sube Singh (PW-19) and R.K.Chauhan (PW-20). 6. 6. Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he admitted that he was appointed as Panchayat Secretary by the Panchayat, Barara vide resolution Ex.PJ Regarding two sale deeds, which were in the name of his brothers Bharat Bhushan and Ramji Dass, he stated that the land was purchased by his brothers from their own sources and they were living separate from him. Regarding the three sale deeds of his wife Vijay Kumar, he took the plea that she purchased the land comprised of those sale deeds, from her own sources as she was having income from the work of stitching/ embroidery and doll making because she possessed a diploma from ITI and with regard to the remaining two sale deeds in his favour, he took the plea that he purchased the property from his own savings after withdrawing the amount from the bank; that the funds were also raised by borrowing from the other persons, from his uncle Darshan Lal and the parents of his wife. He alleged false implication at the instance of one Karam Singh with whom he was having civil litigation. He also took the plea that previously also an enquiry was conducted by the Vigilance Department in February, 1985 but he was exonerated in that enquiry. 7. In defence, the accused examined Devinder Kumar (DW-1), Bikramjit (DW-2), K.G.Sharma (DW-3), Lal Chand Gupta (DW -4), Darshan Lal (DW-5) and his wife Vijay Kumari (DW-6). 8. The trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties convicted and sentenced the accused vide judgment dated 11.4.1997 and order dated 17.4.1997 as aforesaid. 9. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order, appellant-accused preferred the present appeal. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as per judgment of the trial Court the charges in respect of sale deeds Exs.P-C to PG are proved. The sale deeds Ex.PC to PE are in the name of wife of the appellant whereas the sale deeds Ex.PF and PG are in his own name. The total salary as per salary record produced by the prosecution is Rs.65,500/- now. The learned trial Court ignored the testimony of wife of the appellant. She has categorically stated that she was earning hand by stitching/embroidery work. The total salary as per salary record produced by the prosecution is Rs.65,500/- now. The learned trial Court ignored the testimony of wife of the appellant. She has categorically stated that she was earning hand by stitching/embroidery work. The another material evidence produced by the appellant has been ignored which is in the shape of his uncle Darshan Lal. Darshan Lal prior to the execution of the sale deeds Ex.PC to PG has sold his property for a consideration of Rs.1,39,000/- through sale deeds Ex.D-5 to D-7. The trial Court has ignored these sale deeds simply on the ground that the appellant has not reflected the receipt of Rs.50,000/- from his uncle Darshan Lal. That may be mere lapse on the part of the appellant, but that does not attract the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. Darshan Lal uncle of the appellant was having no child and as such there was nothing unnatural for giving money to the appellant. The bank records of wife of the appellant and that of the appellant have been ignored by the trial Court. The prosecution witnesses Jagir Singh (PW-10), DSP Ramandeep Singh (PW-12) and Constable Sardool Singh (PW-13) have categorically stated that the amount covered by the sale deeds was paid by the wife of the appellant. So, in these circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredient of offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act for which the accused has been convicted. 12. The trial Court has observed that under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act property reflected in the service record can be considered. It is contended that no rules or instructions have been referred by the trial Court under which it was required by the appellant to disclose the property of his wife. So far as the property purchased by the appellant is concerned that falls under lessor value than the income of appellant. So, prayer has been made for acquittal of the accused-appellant. 13. Learned State counsel on the other hand has supported the judgment and order passed by the trial Court. It is submitted that the appellant has not given the property return in spite of demand by the department. So, in these circumstances, the property not reflected in the property return statement cannot be left as such. 13. Learned State counsel on the other hand has supported the judgment and order passed by the trial Court. It is submitted that the appellant has not given the property return in spite of demand by the department. So, in these circumstances, the property not reflected in the property return statement cannot be left as such. The trial Court has rightly accepted the fact that appellant has failed to prove the receipt of amount from Darshan Lal. The stand of the appellant regarding income of his wife has also been rightly discarded by the trial Court. So, the prayer has been made for dismissal of the appeal. 14. I have considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 15. It is settled law that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In this case so far as the sale deeds ExsPA and PB are concerned, those are in the name of brother of the appellant and the trial Court itself has not counted those sale deeds for the purpose of offence in question. The dispute is in respect of sale deed Ex.PC to PG. The sale deeds Ex.PC to Ex.PE are in the name of Vijay Kumari, wife of the appellant, whereas sale deeds Ex.PF and PG are in the name of appellant. Appellant has produced his uncle Darshan Lal as DW-5, who has stated that he has sold his 7½ acres of land through different sale deeds Ex. D-5 to Ex. D-7 for a consideration of Rs.1,39,000/-. He has further stated that sale consideration was kept by him in his account with State Bank of India, Mandi Branch, Ambala City. In April 1983, he has withdrawn Rs.50,000/- from his account and gave the same to his nephew-Krishan Gopal i.e. appellant for purchase of some land. His testimony is corroborated by documentary evidence. He has produced statement of account in joint name of Darshan Lal and Chuni Lal. From the perusal of the same it is revealed that Rs.57,000/- was withdrawn on 20.4.1983. The property in the name of appellant and his wife was purchased thereafter. Darshan Lal has further stated that he has no son and he has been treating the appellant as his son as he has been looking after him. From the perusal of the same it is revealed that Rs.57,000/- was withdrawn on 20.4.1983. The property in the name of appellant and his wife was purchased thereafter. Darshan Lal has further stated that he has no son and he has been treating the appellant as his son as he has been looking after him. The learned trial Court has not accepted his testimony on the ground that the appellant has not reported the factum of receipt of money from his uncle in the service record. There are two aspect of the case ; one is lapse on the part of Government official in not reporting acquisition and the other is criminal act whereby the property in excessive value from the known sources of the Government official. If a Government employee does not report the receipt of money from the relatives in that case, departmental action can be taken against him. However, if the property more the than the known sources of Government employee is purchased by him then he is guilty under Sector 13(1)(e) of the Act. The trial Court has not referred the Rule under which the appellant was required to disclose about the property acquired by the wife of the appellant. However, assuming that appellant was required to report about the property acquired by the wife as well as property acquired by him but he has not reported the matter to the department, in that case, only departmental action can be taken against him. Vijay Kumari has appeared as witness for the appellant and she has stated that she was married to the appellant. She used to run business of stitching/ embroidery and in the beginning she has earned Rs.1000/- to 2000/- per month later on her income increased to Rs.3000/- to 4000/- per month. The prosecution has produced Narinder Singh (PW- 10), Raghunath Rai (PW-12) and Buta Ram (PW-13). Buta Ram Lamberdar has produced the sale deeds Ex.PC to PE in favour of Vijay Kumari. All these three witnesses have stated that money was paid by Vijay Kumari. Uncle of appellant has no child and he had sold his property measuring 7½ acres for a consideration of Rs.1,39,000/- prior to the sale deeds in question. So, there is nothing unnatural in giving Rs.50,000/- to the appellant by his uncle for purchase of property in the name of wife of petitioners. Uncle of appellant has no child and he had sold his property measuring 7½ acres for a consideration of Rs.1,39,000/- prior to the sale deeds in question. So, there is nothing unnatural in giving Rs.50,000/- to the appellant by his uncle for purchase of property in the name of wife of petitioners. The trial Court should have considered that aspect of the case. The documentary evidence produced by Darshan Lal clinches the issue that he has actually received the amount of Rs.1,39,000/- through sale deeds Exs.D-5 to D-7 prior to the execution of the sale deed in favour of Vijay Kumari wife of appellant and appellant himself. So, in these circumstances, the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court is in respect of Section 13 (1)(e) of the Act does not sustain the test of legal scrutiny. In case the amount given by Darshan Lal to the appellant is taken along with the income of the appellant in that case the amount spent on the sale deed is almost covered. 16. So, in view of the above discussion, the appeal stands accepted and the impugned judgment and order of the trial court stands set aside. The appellant stands acquitted of the charges levelled against him by giving him benefit of doubt. However, this judgment shall not preclude the department from proceeding against the appellant in accordance with rules regarding not reporting the sale transactions, if so desires. 17. The amount of fine, if deposited, be refunded to the appellant after the period of appeal/revision, if any. 18. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ---------0.J.S.K.0-----------