MANDHATA SINGH, J.:–This confiscation proceeding is initiated on the application filed on behalf of State of Bihar supported with affidavit under section 13 of the Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009 for confiscation of properties shown and identified in the application as well as the properties shown during investigation in supplementary petition in Schedule-A and B total worth valued at Rs. 1,40,04,217.00 in form of movable and immovable properties acquired and possessed by appellant no.1 either in his name or in name of his wife, sons and daughters-in-law during check period of 1.1.1984 to 8.2.2007. Originally a case F.I.R.no.1/2007/SVU, Patna dated 6.2.2007 was registered against him under section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998 with the allegation that he possessed disproportionate asset worth Rs. 56,62,679/-. At that time he was Director General cum Commandant General (Homeguard) and Fire Services, Bihar, Patna. He was an IPS Officer of 1969 Bihar Cadre, joined Service on 23.7.1969. Explanation for disproportionate asset given on behalf of delinquent was found not plausible or satisfactory. 2. Appellant no.1 originally comes from village Sasanpurusotampur, P.O. and P.S. Barchana, Tahsil Danmandal, District Cuttak (Jaipur) Orissa. His father late Krishna Chandra Mishra is said an ordinary farmer and purohit which was his livelihood. He died on 27.3.1993. He was maintaining two saving bank account at his native village, one in Dhanmandal Post Office and another in Indian overseas Bank, Jaipur. Balance of the account was below Rs. 1200/- at the time of his death which is still in tact. He was also maintaining MD account with Indian Overseas Bank, Jaipur in which the balance was Rs. 1, 00,192.50 at the time of his death. He was having some agricultural land also having some income. Appellant no.1 is his sole son and married to appellant no.2. Appellant no.2 remained a house wife. It is said that he started to purchase plots of land and flats in his own name and in name of his wife since the year 1984. House was constructed over plot at 36, Ved Nagar, Rukunpura, Patna and Nepali Nagar Sector-3, Digha. One plot of land was purchased at Singhani, Hazaribagh and a house was existing at native village in Orissa. After the death of his father on 27.3.1993 till 31.3.2000 or till 27.6.2000 he opened HUF SB A/c no. House was constructed over plot at 36, Ved Nagar, Rukunpura, Patna and Nepali Nagar Sector-3, Digha. One plot of land was purchased at Singhani, Hazaribagh and a house was existing at native village in Orissa. After the death of his father on 27.3.1993 till 31.3.2000 or till 27.6.2000 he opened HUF SB A/c no. 3604 with Central Bank of India, CBD, Belapur, Mumbai- From sale of ancestral land on 06.10.1995 Rs. 95,000.00 Withdrawal from MD A/C No.16/85(New A/C 1/93) Rs.1,16,590.50 Maturity amount of NSCs received by Narayan Rs. 80,600.00 Mishra. Agricultural Income from 1993-94 to 1999 Rs. 74,800.00 Maturity amount of NSCs in the name of Subrat Mishra which is claimed to be received by Narayan Mishra. Rs.1,11,200.00 Total: Rs.4,78,190.50 3. Further it is said that appellant opposite party no.1 submitted first in-come-tax Return of HUF on 26.6.2000 while he opened HUF Saving Bank A/c no. 3604 in Central Bank of India CBD, Belapur, Navi Mumbai on 27.6.2000 a day after return. He made deposit by cash to the tune Rs. 1,55,000.00 in between 27.6.2000 to 16.11.2000. He opened another HUF saving bank A/C no. 5401000086030 with D-Mat A/C 19079838 with HDFC Bank , Vashi, Navi Mumbai in the next month i.e. on 10.7.2000 in which he deposited Rs. 5,65,000.00 by cash in between 10.7.2000 to 15.11.2000 within five months of the day from the date of submission of Return without giving satisfactory account of his pecuniary resources. Further it is said that Narayan Mishra prepared balance sheet as on 31.3.1993 by showing balance of matured NSCs of Rs.2,11, 575.00 which were encashed prior to death of his father and face value of unmatured NSCs were of Rs. 1,20,000.00 including NSCs worth Rs. 50,000.00 purchased in name of his eldest son Subrat Mishra who was fully dependent on him and NSCs worth Rs. 30,000.00 for which Subrat Mishra was the nominee. Narayan Mishra was the only nominee of face value of NSCs worth Rs. 40,000.00. Therefore, the matured amount of NSCs encashed for Rs. 2,11,575.00 by his father during his life time cannot be treated in HUF A/C of Narayan Mishra because there is no evidence on record to establish the transfer of matured amount of Rs. 2,11,575.00 to the account of Narayan Mishra or HUF account of Narayan Mishra. So, the balance sheet is fabricated document. Further it is said that deposit of Rs. 2,11,575.00 to the account of Narayan Mishra or HUF account of Narayan Mishra. So, the balance sheet is fabricated document. Further it is said that deposit of Rs. 7,20,000.00 in two HUF account by cash as indicated above against total income of Rs. 4,78, 190.50 and that too after two years from the date of death of his father is not in consonance with the amount inherited from ancestral properties. At best that can be accepted for Rs. 4, 78, 190.50 as income of Narayan Mishra HUF which is also doubtful because there is nothing on record to link the cash deposit Rs. 7, 20,000.00. On the basis of said fabricated balance sheet as on 31.3.1993 the balance sheet ending on 31st March, for the year 1994 to 2000 showing balance of Rs. 9,76,607.73 as on 31.3.2000 was prepared and submitted before the 1st HUF return for the assessment year 2000-01 (financial year 1999 to 2000) is also a fabricated balance sheet, specifically it is said that income shown in the HUF Return does not match with known source of income from ancestral properties. Therefore, the income accrued out of purported HUF Account from transaction of shares, other income, dividends etc. may not be taken as income of HUF. 4. Further it is said that during investigation known source of income, expenditure and assets of Narayan Mishra, his wife Kanchan Mishra, his sons Subrat Mishra, Satyabrat Mishra and Deobrat Mishra and Smt. Pooja Mishra wife of Satyabrat Mishra and Smt. Rita Pandey Mishra wife of Subrat Mishra had been calculated and analysed. 5. As regards, entire transactions of shares of Narayan Mishra HUF and his wife Smt. Kanchan Mishra through Sharad Agrawal Broking Services Pvt. Ltd. has not been taken into consideration because D-mat A/Cs have not been maintained by Sharad Agrawal Broking Services Pvt. Ltd. Most of the transactions through Sharad Agrawal Broking Services Pvt. Ltd. has been done through D-mat A/C of Narayan Mishra HUF and Smt. Kanchan Mishra maintained with HDFC Bank Limited which have been taken into account. But the remaining transaction of shares in their names which have not been reflected in their known D-mat A/C with HDFC Bank Ltd. and ICICI Bank Ltd. have not been accounted for. 6. For Kanchan Mishra appellant no.2 it is said that she was/is a house wife having no earning of her own. But the remaining transaction of shares in their names which have not been reflected in their known D-mat A/C with HDFC Bank Ltd. and ICICI Bank Ltd. have not been accounted for. 6. For Kanchan Mishra appellant no.2 it is said that she was/is a house wife having no earning of her own. She has only income of Rs. 25,000/- from the sale of agricultural land of her father in Orissa in the year 1995, therefore, other incomes shown in her name have not been taken into consideration as her income from known sources. Further it is said that statement of account for the assessment year 2006-07 is without any proof as their incomes have also not been accounted for. Details of calculated income through known sources, expenditure and assets have disclosed that appellant no.1 Naryan Mishra has acquired and possessed assets disproportionate to his known sources and income during check period of 1.1.1984 to 8.2.2007 either in his name or in name of his family members. The quantum disproportionate assets found during investigation have indicated in the table below:– Total calculation details of case FIR No. 001/2007 of SVU/Patna against Narayan Mishra and his family members. Name Income(A) Expenditure (B) Likely Saving Assets(C) DA Narayan Mishra 92,76,385.28 41,56,402.52 51,19,982.76 1,08,98,758.76 57,78,776.00 Kanchan Mishra 25,000.00 46,965.84 21,965.84) 26,96,665.41 27,18,631.25 Satyabrat Mishra 18,11,958.62 7,64,745.63 10,47,212.99 26,47,933.27 16,00,720.28 Pooja Mishra 4,42,495.09 1,319.18 4,41,175.92 5,42,393.12 1,01,217.21 Subrat Mishra 5,69,055.70 2,09,946.96 3,59,108.74 3,08,210.16 (50,898.58) Deobrat Mishra 11,88,407.18 3,93,161.76 7,95,245.42 2,11,828.65 (5,83,416.77) Rita Pandey Mishra 10,52,782.62 84,035.29 9,68,747.33 12,95,473.64 3,26,726.31 Total 1,43,66,084.49 56,56,577.17 87,09,507.32 1,86,01,263.01 98,91,755.69 Schedule of the property (immovable and movable) to be confiscated is given in a schedule as below for its confiscation. (a) Immovable Asset Sl. Description of properties Value of properties Name of the person Place where the Remarks No. with date of acquisition. of Rs. in whose name the properties exist. if any. properties has been acquired. 1. Purchase cost of survey 41,10,501.25 Narayan Mishra Ved Nagar, plot No. 517 (1955 sq.ft Sahkari Grih of area) dt.28.09.1987 & Nirman Samiti survey plot No.518 (2670 Ltd., Mithapur, sq.ft.) dt. 07.05.1991 pur- Rukunpura, chased at Rs. 35,874.25 Patna. and at Rs. 1,20,667.00 + construction cost of house on both the plot Rs. 39,53,960.00 2. Purchase cost of plot No. 2,39,662.00 Narayan Mishra Nepali Nagar, 495 (Survey plot No. 2615) Sector-3, Digha, of 5440 sq.ft. 07.05.1991 pur- Rukunpura, chased at Rs. 35,874.25 Patna. and at Rs. 1,20,667.00 + construction cost of house on both the plot Rs. 39,53,960.00 2. Purchase cost of plot No. 2,39,662.00 Narayan Mishra Nepali Nagar, 495 (Survey plot No. 2615) Sector-3, Digha, of 5440 sq.ft. area from Patna Nirala Sahakari Grih Nirman Samiti, Digha, Patna in the name of KC Mishra, f/o accused vide sale deed no. 1837/1815 dt. 05.04.1984 at Rs. 38,080+member fees Rs. 200 and plot No. 496 (Survey No. 2615) of 5440 sq. ft. on 18.06.1984 vide sale deed No. 20984/20985 dt. 26.11.1990 [38,080+(member fees)= 200] Cost of construction of house on both plot No. 495 & 496 of Narayan Mishra at Nipali Nagar, Sector-3, Digha, Patna of Rs. 1,63,102.00 3. Purchase of two plots of 1,34,675.00 Kanchan Mishra Village Singhani, land adjacent to each Dist. Hajaribagh other measuring 20 & 1.5 decimal (plot No. 1749) and plot No. 1514 were purchased by sale deed No. 13672 dt. 17.10.85 and sale deed No. 4048 dt. 18/22.03.86 at village Singhani, Distt. Hajaribagh in the name of Uday Nath Tripathi, father-in-law of accused. These two plots were transferred in the name of Smt. Kanchan Mishra, w/o accused on 18.01.90 and Cost of construction of house and boundary wall on plot of land at Singhani, Hajaribagh Rs. 1,17,553/-. 4. 5. Purchase of flat No. 4,22,280.00 Kanchan Mishra Pawan Villa Rukun- 204, Pawan Villa, Rukun- pura Patna pura, Patna in name of Smt. Kanchan Mishra from M/s Haveli Construction Pvt. Ltd., Patna on 10.03.2002 [Rs. 3,50,000+ internal modification Rs. 72,280=Rs. 4,22,280.00] ___________________ ________________ _______________ _____________ Smt. Rita Pandey Mishra purchased deed no.5343 5. dt. 12/10/2004 of Danapur 3,12,275.62 Rita Pandey Mishra Rukunpura,Patna registry of Danapur, plot No.F-2, Sector-II, Khata No.54, khesra No. 518, Shiyan Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd., Rukunpura, Patna(1312 sqft. Area Vijay Nagar, Rukunpura, Patna) [=1,75,000+ 21,500+2,828.62= 1,99,328.62] (sale of land to Rita Pandey Mishra at Rs. 1,75,000.00 which as been shown as Rs. 1,39,000.00 in the sale deed but purchase at Rs. 1,75,000.00) and construction cost of Rs. 1,12,947.00 (total Rs.1,99,328.62+1,12,947.00 =Rs.3,12,275.62) (b) Movable Asset Sl. Description of properties Value of properties Name of the person Place where the Remarks No. with date of acquisition. of Rs. in whose name the properties exist. if any. properties has been acquired. 1 Premium paid Birla Sun 90,864.00 Narayan Mishra With Birla Sun Life Insurance in Policy Life Insurance No. 241909 dt. Description of properties Value of properties Name of the person Place where the Remarks No. with date of acquisition. of Rs. in whose name the properties exist. if any. properties has been acquired. 1 Premium paid Birla Sun 90,864.00 Narayan Mishra With Birla Sun Life Insurance in Policy Life Insurance No. 241909 dt. 24/03/2004 of Shri Narayan Mishra on 29.03.2004, 29.03.2005 & 28.03.2006 of Rs. 30,288.00 each 2 Shri Narayan Mishra acc- 4,805.18 Narayan Mishra With HDFC Bank ount number 540100005 8652 dt. 20/05/1999 of HDFC Bank, Vashi Branch, Mumbai Balance as on 31.12.06/31.01.2007 3 Balance of Rs. 7,758.11 7,758.11 Narayan Mishra With ICICI Bank as on 28.09.2006 in SB A/c no. 625901134888 dt 16/08/2005 of Shri Narayan Mishra with ICICI Bank, Ex.Rd. Br., Patna 4 Balance as on 08.02.2007 4,05,328.62 Narayan Mishra With CBI, Rukun- in SB A/c no. 3014 dt. pura 29/12/1993 of Shri Narayan Mishra (Salary A/c) with CBI, Rukunpura Br. Patna. 5 Balance as on 31.12.2006 20,938.14 Narayan Mishra With Standard of Shri Narayan Mishra SB Chartered Bank a/c no. 80510002895 dt. 10.11.2004 of Standard Chartered Bank, (opened with cheque no. 32301 of CBI Salary a/c no. 3014 for Rs. 20,000.00) 6 Balance as on 01.02.2007 7,805.48 Narayan Mishra With Canara Bank, in SB A/c No. 06659 dt. Budh Marg, Patna 16/06/1992 of Shri Narayan Mishra/Smt. Kanchan Mishra(JT) with Canara Bank, Budh Marg Br., Patna 7 Balance as on 31.01.2007 5,471.00 Narayan Mishra With Canara in SB A/c No. 251910100 Bank, Raja Bazar 2844 dt. 28/10/2004 of Shri Narayan Mishra/Smt. Kanchan Mishra(JT) with Canara Bank, Raja Bazar, Br., Patna (locker no. 9) 8 Shri Narayan Mishra & 4,36,403.10 Narayan Mishra With HDFC Bank Sons (HUF) A/c No. 5401000086030 dt. 10/07/2000 of HDFC Bank, Vashi Branch, Mumbai Balance as on 07.02.07 9 Balance as on 30.12.06 45,885.00 Narayan Mishra With CBI Bank in SB A/c No. 6155 dt. 27/06/2000 of Shri Narayan Mishra & Sons (HUF) with CBI, Rukunpura Br., Patna (transferred from CBD Belapur Mumbai) 10 Balance as on 30.12.2006 12,268.61 Narayan Mishra With UTI Bank of UTI Bank Ltd., SB A/c No. 142010100132237 in the name of Narayan Mishra (HUF) in Saket Tower, SP Verma Road, Patna. Letter dt. 15.02.07 11 Smt. Kanchan Mishra a/c 8,793.14 Kanchan Mishra With HDFC Bank no. 5401000101460 dt. 19/01/2001 of HDFC Bank, Vashi Branch, Mumbai, Balance as on 01.01.07/07.02.07 12 Balance of Rs. Letter dt. 15.02.07 11 Smt. Kanchan Mishra a/c 8,793.14 Kanchan Mishra With HDFC Bank no. 5401000101460 dt. 19/01/2001 of HDFC Bank, Vashi Branch, Mumbai, Balance as on 01.01.07/07.02.07 12 Balance of Rs. 5,695.04 5,695.04 Kanchan Mishra With ICICI Bank as on 23.10.2006 in SB A/c no. 625901130206 dt. 04/08/2005 of Smt. Kanchan Mishra with ICICI Bank, Ex. Rd. Br., Patna 13 Balance as on 31.12.2006 43,569.00 Kanchan Mishra With CBI Bank in SB A/c old a/c no. 2812, new 1000419436 dt. 05/08/1998 of Smt. Kanchan Mishra/Shri Narayan Mishra(Jt.) with CBI, CBD, Belapur Vashi, Mumbai 14 Balance as on 08.08.03 639.00 Kanchan Mishra With CBI, Rukun- in SB A/c no. 5699 dt pura Br., Patna 22/11/2001 of Smt. Kanchan Mishra with CBI, Rukunpura Br, Patna 15 Investment of Rs. 9,970/- 9,970.00 Satyabrat Mishra With Birla Sun Life made in Birla Sun Life MF in Folio No.1020165663 dt. 09.03.2000 in name of Satyabrat Mishra 16 Balance as on 03.10.2006 14,189.31 Satyabrat Mishra With Vijay Bank, in SB old a/c no. 13123, Frazer Rd. Br. new 840301010013123 Patna of Satyabrat Mishra and Pooja Mishra with Vijay Bank, Frazer Rd. Br.,Patna 17 Investment of Rs. 27,000 35,000.00 Satyabrat Mishra With HDFC Bank & Rs. 8000.00 dt. 29.10.2003 & dt. 11.09.2000 in HDFC MF Folio No.55141/59 of Narayan Mishra 18 Investment of Rs. 1,30,000.00 Satyabrat Mishra With HDFC Bank 1,30,000.00 in Core and Setellite fund in HDFC Mutual Fund folio no. 828084/15 @ Rs. 5000.00 per month from 10.11.2004 to 11.02.2006 in name of Shri Satya Brat Mishra. 19 Investment of Rs. 1,30, 1,79,000.00 Satyabrat Mishra With HDFC Bank 000.00 @ Rs. 5,000.00 per month from 10.11.2004 to 11.12.2006 on and Rs. 49,000.00 23.01.2006 in HDFC MF Folio No. 828332/47 of Satyabrat Mishra. 20 Investment of Rs. 49,000.00 49,000.00 Satyabrat Mishra With HDFC Bank on 01.06.2006 in HDFC Mutual Fund folio no. 2132973/74 in the name of satyabrat Mishra. 21 Investment of Rs. 49,000.00 49,000.00 Satyabrat Mishra With HDFC Bank on 06.04.2005 in HDFC Mutual Fund folio no. 2131616/71 in the name of Satyabrat Mishra. 22 Purchase of 05 NSCs of 5,000.00 Satyabrat Mishra Kept in Malkhana denomination of Rs. 1000.00 each bearing No. 32CC-137037 to 137039 under registration No. 12857 dt. 19.03.2001 and 32CC-138122 to 138123 under registration No.13179 dt. 22.03.2001 from Patna GPO. 23 Investment of Rs. 10,000.00 10,000.00 Satyabrat Mishra With SBI on 19.08.2002 in folio no. 22 Purchase of 05 NSCs of 5,000.00 Satyabrat Mishra Kept in Malkhana denomination of Rs. 1000.00 each bearing No. 32CC-137037 to 137039 under registration No. 12857 dt. 19.03.2001 and 32CC-138122 to 138123 under registration No.13179 dt. 22.03.2001 from Patna GPO. 23 Investment of Rs. 10,000.00 10,000.00 Satyabrat Mishra With SBI on 19.08.2002 in folio no. 330608607 of Satyabrat Mishra with SBI Mutual Fund 24 Investment of Rs. 40,000.00 40,000.00 Satyabrat Mishra With SBI on 28.12.2004 in folio no. 5062728 of Shri Satya Brat Mishra with SBI Mutual Fund 25 Investment of Rs. 49,000.00 49,000.00 Satyabrat Mishra With SBI on 29.09.2005 in folio no. 5928963 of Shri Satya Brat Mishra with SBI Mutual Fund. 26 Investment of Rs. 49,000.00 49,000.00 Satyabrat Mishra With SBI on 14.02.2006 in folio no. 6516795 of Sri Satya Brat Mishra with SBI Mutual Fund. 27 Smt. Pooja Mishra(jt) a/c 6,996.49 Pooja Mishra With HDFC Bank, no. 1861000042741 dt. Exhibition Rd. 04/10/2004, of HDFC Br.,Patna Bank, Exhibition Road Br., Patna. Balance as on 01.01.07/31.01.07. 28 Investment of Rs. 10,000.00 10,000.00 Pooja Mishra With SBI on 29.09.2005 in folio no. 5929937 of Pooja Mishra with SBI Mutual Fund. 29 An amount of Rs. 29,39, 29,39,982.60 Narayan Mishra, With HDFC Bank 982.60 is to be confiscated HUF, Kanchan out of the sale of shares Mishra, Satya Brat in holdings with HDFC Mishra Bank in Demat A/c No. 19079838, 1200829 and Demat A/c No. 1464553 of Narayan Mishra HUF, Demat A/c no. 12292712 of Kanchan Mishra and Demat a/c no. 17424591of Satyabrat Mishra with HDFC Bank against the total purchase value of shares worth Rs. 49,61,250.83. Total============ 48,20,361.82 7. Further it is said on behalf of State of Bihar that after completion of investigation in the aforesaid case disproportionate assets increased to Rs. 1,40,52,639.67. These disproportionate assets have been found in name and possession of elder son Subrat Mishra. A supplementary schedule is given below for confiscation: (a) Movable asset Sl. Description of properties with date Value of proper- Name of person in Place where Re- No. of acquisition ties of Rs. whose name proper- properties Mark ties has been acqui- exist. if red. any 30. Remaining shares in holdings of 20,21,268.23 Narayan Mishra HUF With HDFC purchase cost of Rs. 49,61,250.83 and Individual, Bank – Rs. 29,39,982.60 (already indi- Kanchan Mishra and cated for confiscation at Sl. No.29 Satyabrat Mishra in the schedule of movable prop- erties)= Rs. whose name proper- properties Mark ties has been acqui- exist. if red. any 30. Remaining shares in holdings of 20,21,268.23 Narayan Mishra HUF With HDFC purchase cost of Rs. 49,61,250.83 and Individual, Bank – Rs. 29,39,982.60 (already indi- Kanchan Mishra and cated for confiscation at Sl. No.29 Satyabrat Mishra in the schedule of movable prop- erties)= Rs. 20,21,268.23 is also to be confiscated. 31 Premium paid to Birla Sun Life Insu- 35,396.00 Satyabrat Mishra With Birla rance Police No.000156691 dt. Sun Life 11.12.2003 in the name of Satya- Insurance brat Mishra 32 Premium paid to Birla Sun Life In- 71,082.00 Satyabrat Mishra With Birla surance Policy No.000309056 dt. Sun Life 27.10.2004 in name of Satyabrat Insurance Mishra 33 Premium paid in LIC Policy No. 18,718.00 Satyabrat Mishra With LIC 511875299 of Kankarbagh branch, Luhiyan Nagar, Patna dt. 28/06/2000 of Sri Satyabrat Mishra from 28/30.06.2000 to 13.04.2006 (Yly Rs.2,674.00), Maturity 06/2015 34 Premium paid LIC in Policy No. 19,224.00 Satyabrat Mishra With LIC 121149470 of Shri Satyabrat Mishra (Yly Rs.2136.00) dt 28/04/1998, Maturity 04/2010 35 Premium paid in LIC Policy No. 25,146.00 Satyabrat Mishra With LIC 121149469 of Shri Satyabrat Mishra (Yly Rs. 2794.00) dt. 28/04/1998, Maturity 04/2010 36 Premium paid in LIC Policy No. 19,579.00 Satyabrat Mishra With LIC 51825396 of Shri Satyabrat Mishra (Yly Rs.2797.00) dt 28/03/2000, Maturity 03/2012 37 Premium paid in LIC Policy No. 66,648.00 Satyabrat Mishra With LIC 512091722 of Shri Satyabrat Mishra dt 28/11/2001, (Yly Rs. 11108.00) Maturity 11/2013 total amount till 18.10.2006 38 Shri Satyabrat Mishra A/c no. 1,88,276.06 Satyabrat Mishra With HDFC 2351020000099 dt. 11.10.04 in Bank, Boring HDFC Bank, Boring Road, Patna ID Rd. Patna No.6340430. Balance as on 07.02.2007. 39 Balance of Rs. 12,217.62 as on 12,217.62 Satyabrat Mishra With ICICI 21.09.2006 in SB A/c no.6259011 Bank, Ex.Rd. 16156 dt. 24.01.02 of Shri Satyab- Br.,Patna rat Mishra with ICICI Bank, Ex.Rd. Br.,Patna 40 Balance of Rs. 7312.75 as on 7,312.75 Satyabrat Mishra With ICICI 06.02.2007 in SB A/c no.6259011 Bank, Ex. 30156 dt. 19/04/2004 of Shri Satya- Rd.Br.,Patna brat Mishra with ICICI Bank, Ex. Rd.Br.,Patna 41 Balance as on 31.12.06 of Shri 15,263.64 Satyabrat Mishra With Standard Satyabrat Mishra SB A/c no. 8051 Chartered 007505 dt. 15/6/2006 of Standard Bank,Patna Chartered Bank, Patna Br. Br. 42 Balance as on 31.12.2006 of Shri 15,263.64 Satyabrat Mishra With Standard Satyabrat Mishra/Smt. Pooja Mishra Chartered SB a/c no. 80510070521 dt. Rd.Br.,Patna 41 Balance as on 31.12.06 of Shri 15,263.64 Satyabrat Mishra With Standard Satyabrat Mishra SB A/c no. 8051 Chartered 007505 dt. 15/6/2006 of Standard Bank,Patna Chartered Bank, Patna Br. Br. 42 Balance as on 31.12.2006 of Shri 15,263.64 Satyabrat Mishra With Standard Satyabrat Mishra/Smt. Pooja Mishra Chartered SB a/c no. 80510070521 dt. Bank, Patna 15/6/2006 of Standard Chartered Br. Bank, Patna Branch. 43 Investment of Rs. 17,500.00 on 27,500.00 Satyabrat Mishra With SBI 01.09.06 and Rs. 10,000.00 on 06.02.2007 in folio no. 7443468 of SBI Mutual Fund of satyabrat Mishra. 44 Monthly investment in ICICI Pruden- 30,000.00 Satyabrat Mishra With ICICI tial folio no. 1323352/57 dt. 26/12/2005 Prudential of Satyabrat Mishra @ Rs. 2500.00 per month from 26.12.2005 to 26.12.2006. 45 Monthly investment in folio no. 60,000.00 Satyabrat Mishra With ICICI 916418/17 dt. 15/06/2005 with Prud- Prudential ential ICICI Mutual Fund Patna Br. From 15.06.2005 to 08.05.2006 @ Rs. 5000.00 per month of Shri Satyabrat Mishra 46 Investment of Rs. 30,000.00 in bet- 30,000.00 Satyabrat Mishra With Franklin ween 26.12.2005 to 11.12.2006 in Templeton folio no. 2019901575462 (A/c No. Asset 7446) with Franklin Templeton Management Asset Management Pvt. Ltd. of Pvt. Ltd. Shriu Satyabrat Mishra. 47 Investment of Rs. 30,000.00 on 30,000.00 Satyabrat Mishra With Franklin 02.03.2005 in folio no. 5809 (A/c Templeton No. 7446) with Franklin Templeton Asset Asset Management Pvt. Ltd., of Management Shri Satyabrat Mishra. Pvt. Ltd. 48 Investment of Rs. 23,000.00 (Rs. 23,000.00 Satyabrat Mishra With Franklin 13,000.00 on 04.12.2003 and Rs. Templeton 10,000.00 on 15.12.2003) in folio Asset no. 14492539 (0760) with Franklin Management Templeton Asset Management Pvt. Pvt. Ltd. Ltd. of Shri Satyabrat Mishra. 49 Investment of Rs. 65,000.00 from 65,000.00 Satyabrat Mishra With Standard 26.12.2005 to 20.12.2006 @ Rs. Chartered 5,000.00 per month in Standard Asset Chartered Asset Management Co- Management mpany Pvt. Ltd., 41, Chaurangee, Company Kolkata-71 Folio no.392139/96 in Pvt. Ltd. the name Shri Satyabrat Mishra 50 Investment of Rs. 65,000.00 from 65,000.00 Satyabrat Mishra With Standard 26.12.2005 to 20.12.2006 @ Rs. Chartered 5000.00 per month in Standard Asset Chartered Asset Management Co- Management mpany Pvt. Ltd. 41, Chaurangee, Company Kolkata-71 Folio no. 392138/02 in Pvt. Ltd. the name Shri satyabrat Mishra. 51 Investment made in Reliance Mutual 49,000.00 Satyabrat Mishra With Reliance Fund A/c No. 43124875050 dt. 28.03.2006 of Rs. 49,000.00 in the name of Satyabrat Mishra. 52 Investment of Rs. Chartered 5000.00 per month in Standard Asset Chartered Asset Management Co- Management mpany Pvt. Ltd. 41, Chaurangee, Company Kolkata-71 Folio no. 392138/02 in Pvt. Ltd. the name Shri satyabrat Mishra. 51 Investment made in Reliance Mutual 49,000.00 Satyabrat Mishra With Reliance Fund A/c No. 43124875050 dt. 28.03.2006 of Rs. 49,000.00 in the name of Satyabrat Mishra. 52 Investment of Rs. 49,000.00 on 49,000.00 Satyabrat Mishra With Reliance 29.03.2005 in folio No. 4547557263 with Reliance Mutual Fund of Shri Satyabrat Mishra 53 Investment of Rs. 49,000.00 on 49,000.00 Satyabrat Mishra With Reliance 29.03.2005 in folio No. 4547557242 with Reliance Mutual Fund of Shri Satyabrat Mishra 54 Investment of Rs. 25,000.00 each 1,00,000.00 Satyabrat Mishra With Franklin in Account No. 2019901169948, Templeton 2019901169949, 2019901169951 Investments and 2019901169950 with Franklin Templeton Investments of Shri Satyabrat Mishra on 02.03.2005 55 Balance of Rs. 1,14,524.61 as on 1,14,524.61 Subrat Mishra With ICICI 20.12.2006 in SB A/c no. 625901- Bank,Ex.Rd. 131207 dt. 06/04/2004 of Shri Br.,Patna Subrat Mishra with ICICI Bank, Ex. Rd. Br.Patna 56 Balance as on 31.12.06 of Shri 45,410.00 Subrat Mishra With CBI, Subrat Mishra/Narayan Mishra (jt) CBD, Belapur old a/c no. 3155, new 1000421919 Vashi, dt. 11/05/1999 of CBI, CBD, Belapur Mumbai Vashi, Mumbai 57 Balance as on 05.01.07 in SB A/c 735.00 Subrat Mishra With CBI, no. 20211 dt. 17/07/2003 of Shri TT Nagar Br., Subrat Mishra/Smt. Rita Pandey Bhopal (M.P.) (jt.) with CBI, TT Nagar Br., Bhopal (M.P.) 58 Balance as on 30.12.06 in SB A/c 241.00 Subrat Mishra With CBI, no. 2933 dt. 19/10/1993 of Shri Rukunpura Subrat Mishra/Smt. Kanchan Mishra Br., Patna (Jt.) with CBI, Rukunpura Br., Patna 59 Balance as on 08.02.07 in CD a/c 791.00 Subrat Mishra With CBI, no. 327 of M/s K.P.Pharma (Prop Rukunpura Subrat Mishra) with CBI, Rukunpura Br., Patna Br., Patna 60 Balance as on 24.10.2006 in SB 314.92 Subrat Mishra With SBI a/c old a/c No. 01190009408 new Bank, a/c no. 10471013826 of Subrat Bhopal Br. Mishra/Smt. Rita Pandey Mishra (JT) with SBI Bank, Bhopal Br. 61 Balance as on 30.12.2006 of UTI 3,582.40 Subrat Mishra With UTI Bank Ltd. SB A/c No. 142010100- Bank 032513 in name of Subrat Mishra in Saket Tower, SP Verma Rd., Patna 62 Balance in SB A/c no. 044010100- 2,043.33 Subrat Mishra With UTI Bank 150415 dt. Mishra/Smt. Rita Pandey Mishra (JT) with SBI Bank, Bhopal Br. 61 Balance as on 30.12.2006 of UTI 3,582.40 Subrat Mishra With UTI Bank Ltd. SB A/c No. 142010100- Bank 032513 in name of Subrat Mishra in Saket Tower, SP Verma Rd., Patna 62 Balance in SB A/c no. 044010100- 2,043.33 Subrat Mishra With UTI Bank 150415 dt. 02.02.2004 with UTI/Axis Bank Ltd., Bhopal in the joint name of Subrat Mishra and his wife Smt. Rita Pandey Mishra as on 06.02.2007 63 Balance as on 02.02.2007 in SB 408.00 Subrat Mishra With Indian A/c no. 5773 dt. 13/12/2005 of Overseas Subrat Mishra with Indian Overseas Bank, Angul Bank, Angul Branch. Branch 64 Investment made in folio no. 411010/ 30,000.00 Subrat Mishra With Kotak 34, 410995/79 & 411002/58 dt. Mutual Fund 27/07/2005 of Rs. 10,000 each in name of Subrat Mishra of Kotak Mutual Fund. 65 500 shares of Kabra Extructionte- 1,09,159.90 Subrat Mishra With ICICI chnik Ltd. worth Rs. 46,879.25, 50 Bank shares of UTI Bank worth Rs. 12,578.11, 300 shares of Berger Paints Ltd. worth Rs. 17,740.44 and 100 shares of Jaiprakash Hydro Poer Ltd. worth Rs. 31,962.10 in Demat A/c No. 33223234 of Subrat Mishra with ICICI Bank at the end of check period i.e. 08.02.2007. 66 Balance of Rs. 18,390.30 as on 18,390.30 Rita Pandey Mishra With ICICI 02.09.2006 in SB A/c No.6259011- Bank, Ex.Rd. 36722 dt. 23/05/2006 of Smt. Rita Br.,Patna Pandey Mishra with ICICI Bank, Ex. Rd.Br., Patna 67 Balance as on 02.01.2007 in SB 18,316.30 Rita Pandey Mishra With UCO A/c No. 4906 dt. 07.6.1995 of Smt. Bank, Rita Pandey Mishra with UCO Bank, Buniyadganj Buniyadganj Br. Gaya. Br.,Gaya 68 10 shares of Shagea worth Rs. 6,240.40 Rita Pandey Mishra With ICICI 595.45, 60 shares of Madref worth Bank Rs. 12,330.00, 200 shares of India Cement Ltd., worth Rs. 39,142.48, 75 shares of Balind worth Rs. 40,893.91, 300 shares of DCMSHR worth Rs. 27,245.89 and 300 shares of India Cement Ltd., worth Rs. 46,800.69 in Demat A/c No. 51427867/8500 of Rita Pandey Mishra with ICICI Bank at the end of check period i.e. 08.02.2007. Shares in holding sold during August, 2007 to June, 2008 of Rs. 1,67,008.42. 69 Investment in Reliance Mutual Fund 1,65,000.00 Rita Pandey Mishra With Reliance A/c No. 49131973592 dt. 10.11.2006 Mutual Fund of Rs. 1,65,000 in name of Rita Pandey Mishra. Shares in holding sold during August, 2007 to June, 2008 of Rs. 1,67,008.42. 69 Investment in Reliance Mutual Fund 1,65,000.00 Rita Pandey Mishra With Reliance A/c No. 49131973592 dt. 10.11.2006 Mutual Fund of Rs. 1,65,000 in name of Rita Pandey Mishra. 70 Premium paid to Birla Sun Life Ins- 25,000.00 Pooja Mishra With Birla urance Policy No. 000571045 dt. Sun Life 20.02.2006 in name of Pooja Mishra 71 Premium Paid in LIC Policy No. 38,759.00 Pooja Mishra With Birla 511908347 of Smt. Pooja Mishra Sun Life (Yly Rs. 5537) dt. 27/08/2000, Maturity 08/2012 72 Balance as on 25.01.2007 in SB 11,279.50 Pooja Mishra With ICICI A/c No.625901133387 dt. 30/12/2004 Bank, Ex. of Smt. Pooja Mishra/Shri Satyabrat Rd. Br., Mishra with ICICI Bank, Ex.Rd.Br., Patna Patna 73 Balance as on 08.02.2007/21.03.2007 36,857.43 Pooja Mishra With SBI from SB new a/c no. 10454358216, Bank, old a/c no. 011901007651, old a/c Anandpuri no. 2289, Danapur a/c no. 011900- Br.Patna 28742, of smt. Pooja Pandey with SBI Bank, Anandpuri Br., Patna 74 Balance as on 31.12.2006 of Smt. 31,923.50 Pooja Mishra With Pooja Mishra/Satyabrat Mishra (JT) Standard SB a/c no. 80510003611 dt. Chartered 17/11/2004 of Standard Chartered Bank. Bank, 75 Balance as on 31.12.2006 of SB 15,263.64 Pooja Mishra With a/c no. 805100070548 of Smt. Pooja Standard Mishra and Satyabrat Mishra dt. Chartered 15/6/2006 of Standard Chartered Bank Bank. 76 Balance as on 31.12.2006 of Smt. 15,263.64 Pooja Mishra With Pooja Mishra SB a/c no. 8051007- Standard 0513 dt. 15/6/2006 of Standard Chartered Chartered Bank Bank 77 Shares in holdings:- 3,30,063.47 Pooja Mishra With ICICI Bank (i) 1000 shares od Exiind worth Rs. 41,396.36, 100 shares of Tamnew worth Rs. 9702.91, 400 shares of Hotlee worth Rs. 27,462.96, 50 shares of hotlee worth Rs. 3836.74, 50 shares of hotlee worth Rs. 3,225.90, 50 shares of Sesgoa worth Rs. 53,007.58, 100 shares of Relpet worth Rs. 8,140.96, 90 shares of Jindalstainless worth Rs. 13,883.16, 50 shares of Exide Industries worth Rs. 14,468.16, 100 shares of India Cement Ltd. worth Rs. 22,056.17, 300 shares of Mercator Lines worth Rs. 13,477.20 and 20 shares of Chennai Petroleum worth Rs. 4,331.72 (Total Rs. 2,14,989.82) (ii) 40 shares of Ashok Leyland, 100 shares of BSEL worth Rs. 2,096.40 Infr., 75 shares of Ceat Ltd. worth Rs. 8,600.25, 200 shares of Lyka Labs worth Rs. 13,046.00, 100 shares of Pratibha Ind. Worth Rs. 38,702.00, 200 shares RNRL worth Rs. 13,477.20 and 20 shares of Chennai Petroleum worth Rs. 4,331.72 (Total Rs. 2,14,989.82) (ii) 40 shares of Ashok Leyland, 100 shares of BSEL worth Rs. 2,096.40 Infr., 75 shares of Ceat Ltd. worth Rs. 8,600.25, 200 shares of Lyka Labs worth Rs. 13,046.00, 100 shares of Pratibha Ind. Worth Rs. 38,702.00, 200 shares RNRL worth Rs. 8,148.00, 300 shares of RPL worth Rs. 26,979.00, 100 shares of BSEL Infra. worth Rs.9,254.00 and 200 shares of Surana Telecom worth Rs. 8248.00 (Total Rs. 1,15,073.65) transferred from D’mat A/c no. 11847717 of Satyabrat Mishra with Kotak Securities Ltd. (value of shares has been calculated as per statement of PW No. 107) in Demat A/c No. 41293873 of Pooja Mishra with ICICI Bank at the end of check period i.e. 08.02.2007. (iii) Value of 25 shares of CHI Investment, 100 shares of Sesa Goa not available. Total=============== 41,12,462.28 8. On the basis of issuance of notice, all the opposite parties appeared and they filed their statement of defence. A joint statement is there on behalf of opposite party appellant nos. 1 to 5 making therein allegation against the State that copies of documents seized from the residence of appellant no.1 have not been supplied. It has been admitted in the statement that Kanchan Mishra is a house wife having no independent source of income. On the point of valuation of land and house it is said that they have been exorbitantly high, valued by authorized valuer of State Government at the instance of Special Vigilance Unit. For HUF A/c it is said that the same is fully tax paid account which cannot be clubbed with any individual income. The same is accounted with inherited properties of appellant no.1 including agricultural income, maturity amount of fixed amount, NSCs and other investment, sale proceeds of ancestral land, verified by SVU also. It has further been stated that sons of appellant no.1 Narayan Mishra are not public servants rather employed in private sector having their own independent source of income which have not been separately taken into account. The income of his daughter-in-law namely Rita Pandey Mishra has not been fully and completely shown income from her parental property including income from cash crops, rent of house, Tractor, sale of Tractor etc. 9. The income of his daughter-in-law namely Rita Pandey Mishra has not been fully and completely shown income from her parental property including income from cash crops, rent of house, Tractor, sale of Tractor etc. 9. On 21.9.2010 a separate statement of defence has been filed on behalf of opposite party appellant no.2 Kanchan Mishra stating therein that she is purely a house wife, not a public servant and the investment in her name has been made by her husband. Flat No. 204 in Pawan Villa was purchased by her husband in her name after proper information to the Government. Its value has excessively been assessed Rs. 4,22,280/, for Rs. 3,50,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- spent for marble flooring. 10. With regard to assets at serial nos. 2 and 3 at village Singhani, District Hazaribagh, it is said that the same was purchased by her father for Rs. 15,000/- and construction of boundary from three sides was also done on his cost. She inherited the same as his only heir. The total cost of construction of guard room valued in the year 2004 as Rs. 30,000/- only. 11. It has further been stated that assets C-2 at Sr. No.15 which relates to D-Mat account no. 12292712 valued Rs. 19,77,154.27/- has wrongly been shown. The actual share in five companies which have been added to the holding list, in addition to what has been shown in their own document or not authenticated the holding list issued by the Bank. Actually the same was sold long back. The net gain balance Rs. 3,14,905.00 will be the actual cost in form of shares in holdings which is also actual cost assets value. It has been further stated that being house wife she (Kanchan Mishra) opposite party appellant no.2 was having no independent source of income except the gain from sale of share as well as from the sale of her ancestral property in Orissa. Funds for investment of share in name of opposite party appellant no.2 were arranged by opposite party appellant no.1 Narayan Mishra. Further it is said that she was having income from dividends, rental income from Pawan Villa but all the documents were seized by SVU. Total income of this opposite party appellant no.2 is said Rs. 6, 22,762.00 with interest and dividends also. 12. Further it is said that she was having income from dividends, rental income from Pawan Villa but all the documents were seized by SVU. Total income of this opposite party appellant no.2 is said Rs. 6, 22,762.00 with interest and dividends also. 12. Next statement of defence is filed on behalf of Satyabrat Mishra and his wife Pooja Mishra stating therein that they were not public servants rather Satyabrat Mishra is manager in a reputed private Bank having his own independent source of income. Statement of income, expenditure and assets shown by SVU are said incorrect suppressing real fact. At Sr. No. 2 his salary has been shown only Rs. 6,01,077.00 drawn at HDFC Bank while he received Rs. 8,26,405.00 and Rs. 2,25,328.00 is said less shown. 13. For Maruti Car it is said that same was purchased by fund of his father-in-law in the year 1999 and sold in the year 2004 for a sum of Rs. 90,000.00 that should be accounted as his income. Profit from trading of Punjab National Bank share through Gogiya Capital is said wrongly calculated at Rs. 20,476.00 instead of Rs. 5,54,429.00. Further income from sale of HDFC-M.F. in the year 2006 for Rs. 19,571.80 has not been considered towards income. 14. For Sr. No. 37 of the assets portion of Satyabrat Mishra in D-Mat Account No. 17424591 of HDFC Bank for Rs. 1,17,556.45 cost price of share of HDFC Bank has been shown as cost paid assets whereas the said shares were offered to Satyabrat Mishra being an employee of the Bank as cash less option of ESOP out of the shares of HDFC Bank Rs. 631.00. The opposite party appellant exercised option for 400 shares after adjustment of 238 shares, 117 shares allotted in cash less option. Thus 117 shares of HDFC Bank are gross assets. Thus a sum of 1, 17,556.45 shown as possession of assets has been shown as free of cost. It is further stated that Pooja Mishra received an amount of rupees four lacs in cash from her father as gift in her marriage in the year 1999 for purchase of Car and jewelleries. She also received rupees eleven lacs which have been taken into account as her income. It is further stated that Pooja Mishra received an amount of rupees four lacs in cash from her father as gift in her marriage in the year 1999 for purchase of Car and jewelleries. She also received rupees eleven lacs which have been taken into account as her income. Further it is said that rupees six lacs were received by Pooja Mishra in cash as interest free loan from her brother-in-law Vikash Trivedi for investment in equity market in the year 2003-04 which has also been taken into account. Further Rs. 1,50,000.00 cash was received from one Dharmendra Kumar Singh at Hazaribagh as interest free loan for investment in equity and money market and that should be taken into account and for receipt source. It has further been mentioned that draft capital account in name of Pooja Mishra was prepared which was missed to mention in Bank and investment etc. Further it is said that kitchen expenditure 33% of salary amount is said incorrect as during this period she was staying with her parents. 15. Opposite party appellant no.1 Narayan Mishra again filed a separate statement of defence on 21.9.2010 alleging therein that the above proceeding has been started against him at the instance of departmental and political malice by vested interest. It has been stated that he was born in 1947. His mother died while he was five years of age. His marriage was solemnized in the year 1967 with opposite party appellant no.2 Smt. Kanchan Mishra. His father was a responsible personality in the locality because of his eminence knowledge of Sanskrit, Shastra, Ved-Puran of Hindu religion. His father was having irrigated agricultural land which was sufficient for maintenance and good saving. He got his education in prestigious institution of Katak and all his needs were maintained only from the agricultural income. It has further been stated that his father was in habit of saving and he used to save money and deposit in Post Office and in local bank. It has further been stated that he was having HUF income from the inherited land which he invested in share market and also used to pay income tax of HUF of the year 2004-05. It is further stated that salary income since 1971 to December, 1983 total worth Rs. 1, 24,000.00 has not been shown by the SVU, so, total salary increased by Rs. 2, 24,433.00. It is further stated that salary income since 1971 to December, 1983 total worth Rs. 1, 24,000.00 has not been shown by the SVU, so, total salary increased by Rs. 2, 24,433.00. The income from matured LIC Policy has wrongly been shown by the Special Vigilance Unit Rs. 45,050.00 for Rs. 8,45,000.00. It is further stated that income tax is paid on house rent. It is further stated that after grant of LTC by Government he traveled by aeroplane that amount should be deducted. The expense on newspaper and library he was entitled for the reimbursement. It is further stated that Hostel accommodation is in a private house by share of four students and son of appellant no.1 namely Subrat Mishra was having 1/4th share and that was Rs. 22,500.00. Kitchen expense is stated limited only to Rs. 3,30,000.00. Inventory of household articles of this accused appellant has wrongly been shown as Deobrat Mishra was contributing time to time upto rupees three lacs. Further it has been mentioned that rupees one lac belonged to Deobrat Mishra. For gold jewelleries it is stated that same belong to his daughters-in-law as Istri Dhan which was received by them by way of gift at the time of marriage. Being posted at different districts in Bihar their ornaments were kept in Madhu Kunj for safety. Agricultural land in name of his father has been purchased by him from his own funds. Further it is stated that authorized valuer of State evaluated house of opposite party appellant no.1 in pursuant to conspiracy with I.O. R.K.Singh worth Rs. 39,53,960.00 is highly excessive while approved valuer evaluated the cost only Rs. 18,55,000.00. Further evaluation of construction at Nepali Nagar, Sector 3, Digha, Patna worth Rs. 1,63,102.00 has also been said excessive. It is further stated that after the death of his father, he constructed a house at his native village from HUF account. Said cheques were sent by opposite party appellant no.1 were encashed only in Katak Gramya Bank. Flat in Pawan Villa has been purchased by Narayan Mishra from his own fund worth Rs. 3,70,000.00 but the cost has highly been evaluated by Special Vigilance Unit. 16. Next statement of defence (reply) is filed on behalf of Rita Pandey Mishra and her husband Subrat Mishra to the effect that they are not public servant. Flat in Pawan Villa has been purchased by Narayan Mishra from his own fund worth Rs. 3,70,000.00 but the cost has highly been evaluated by Special Vigilance Unit. 16. Next statement of defence (reply) is filed on behalf of Rita Pandey Mishra and her husband Subrat Mishra to the effect that they are not public servant. Subrat Mishra is an Engineer in a Private Limited Organisation having his own distinct source of income. It has further been mentioned that Rita Pandey Mishra was the sole survivor of her parents and inherited valuable landed property of her father at Gaya having distinct source of income. During life time of her mother, some land was sold with her mother amounting to Rs. 18,69,500.00 for which income tax return was also filed. 17. Agricultural income was also there from cash crop. Apart from it, rent of Tractor, house rent and income from sale of Tractor worth Rs. 1,00651.00 was also there. Extra overall income is said Rs. 10,25,000.00. Her total income is said Rs. 28, 94,500.00. Total salaried income of Subrat Mishra is said Rs. 5,00,000.00. ICICI and D-Mat account of Subrat Mishra have been maliciously shown to be unknown source, in fact has been funded through cheques from joint account of Subrat Mishra and Rita Pandey Mishra, received through demand draft worth Rs. 3,00,000.00 from Manoj Pandey and others of Gaya as sale proceeds of land. Thus sale/purchase of shares by Subrat Mishra is justified as income from proper source. 18. On behalf of the State reply is filed on 1.3.2011 against the statement of defence dated 21.9.2010 filed by Subrat Mishra and his wife Rita Pandey Mishra alleging herein that during course of investigation it has been found that Rita Pandey Mishra had sold plots of land after the death of her mother in the year 2004 by executing sale deed in the year 2005 for a sum of Rs. 9, 35,000.00 which has also been reflected in her IT Return for the financial year 2005-06. The plots sold by the parents of Rita Pandey Mishra during their life time have not been computed in the part of income of Rita Pandey Mishra as she did not produce any supporting evidence in this regard. 9, 35,000.00 which has also been reflected in her IT Return for the financial year 2005-06. The plots sold by the parents of Rita Pandey Mishra during their life time have not been computed in the part of income of Rita Pandey Mishra as she did not produce any supporting evidence in this regard. Moreover, the document No. D-208 IT Return of Rita Pandey Mishra read with letter dated 11.3.2008 of Manoj Kumar Pandey also prove that she sold plots of land for a value of Rs. 9, 35,000.00 only while her mother sold plots of land for a value of Rs. 4, 25,000.00 during her life time in the year 2,004.00 and there is no proof of transfer of this amount of sale proceeds to Rita Pandey Mishra. Therefore, it cannot be said that she had received any sale proceeds from her mother. 19. It has been further mentioned in the reply of State that rental income of Rita Pandey Mishra has not been shown in her I.T. Return for the assessment year 2006-07 and this fact clearly proves that she has no rental income at all. At best it may be stated that she might have given the outdoor portion of her ancestral house at Gaya to the care taker of the house free of cost who used to look after her house during her stay period at Bhopal. So far as the agricultural income from land at Gaya is concerned, the same has not been proved as stated by Rita Pandey Mishra in her statement of defence. It has been further stated that income from freight of Tractor which was in name of Ram Sewak Pandey, father of Rita Pandey Mishra which was sold in the year 2001, shortly after the death of Ram Sewak Pandey in the year 1999, therefore, the income, if any, from the Tractor after 1999 was received by her mother Malti Devi who also expired in the year 2005 and as such, she cannot claim this as her income. It has further been mentioned in the reply that as per letter of Maharishi Vidya Mandir, Bhopal dated 9.8.2007 vide D-66 Subrat Mishra husband of Rita Pandey Mishra received Rs. 71,706.00 only as his salary for the period from May, 2000 to 5.11.2001. It has further been mentioned in the reply that as per letter of Maharishi Vidya Mandir, Bhopal dated 9.8.2007 vide D-66 Subrat Mishra husband of Rita Pandey Mishra received Rs. 71,706.00 only as his salary for the period from May, 2000 to 5.11.2001. Thereafter, he worked with M. N .Dastoor and Company Pvt. Ltd. from 7.12.2005 till January, 2007 and during this period he received Rs. 2, 25,246.00 as his net salary. 20. It has been further mentioned that letter was sent to Narayan Mishra to produce his family members for their interrogation to explain their income, expenditure and assets. All the family members were interrogated and their statements were recorded except Subrat Mishra who did not turn up. The salary income of Subrat Mishra has been claimed from Bhardwaj Construction Company for the period from June, 1993 to October, 1996 worth Rs. 1, 20,000.00 from Sulabh International for the period from September, 1997 to June, 1999 worth Rs. 1,05,000.00 and from Maharishi Housing Development Finance Ltd. for the period from November, 2001 to March, 2004 worth Rs. 2,44,000.00. The income of Rs. 21,387.00 from PF withdrawal is not crystal clear from the statement of SB A/c no. 20211 of Central Bank of India, TT Nagar, Bhopal of Subrat Mishra. In this connection the claimed salary income may not be considered as income of Subrat Mishra in absence of proper and reliable documentary evidence. His income from purchase and sale of shares through his D-Mat A/c with ICICI Bank has been calculated as Rs. 1, 27,952.78 and other small income amounting to Rs. 32,321.92 has not been taken as his income because he failed to explain these amounts from his legal source of income. 21. Another reply on behalf of State of Bihar has been filed against the statement of defence filed on behalf of opposite party appellant no.2 Kanchan Mishra dated 21.9.2010 alleging therein that opposite party appellant no.2 Kanchan Mishra has admitted in her statement of defence that Pawan Villa has been purchased by her husband in her name and the cost of Flat amounting to Rs. 4, 22,280.00 is based on document D-50 the report of technical expert. It has been further stated that two plots of land at village Singhani in Hazaribagh District were purchased in name of father of Kanchan Mishra in the year 1985 and 1986 while appellant no.1 Narayan Mishra was posted there. 4, 22,280.00 is based on document D-50 the report of technical expert. It has been further stated that two plots of land at village Singhani in Hazaribagh District were purchased in name of father of Kanchan Mishra in the year 1985 and 1986 while appellant no.1 Narayan Mishra was posted there. No evidence has come on the record that the aforesaid plots were purchased out of fund of father of Kanchan Mishra. Moreover, she has neither produced any evidence regarding visit of her father to Hazaribagh during this period nor regarding the funds provided by her father. After the death of her father the ownership of above plots was transferred by in heritance in her name as the plots were purchased in name of her father. 22. The value of shares is said correctly calculated which is based on document D-36. It has been clarified that holding value of few shares was not correctly indicated in Document-36 and therefore, value of holding of shares has increased. It has been further stated that opposite party appellant no.2 herself has admitted that her income was only from the sale of her ancestral land in Orissa and the funds for investment in shares in her name were arranged by her husband appellant no.1. The income from dividends has been calculated as per the documents available on the record. Whatever the income tax returns were received, have been listed in the list of documents and the same were supplied to appellant no.1. It has been further stated that rental income of Rs. 1, 26,000.00 from Pawan Villa Flat shown in income tax return is simply a declaration to Income Tax Department. The Files seized vide Sl. Nos.3 and 7 of the seizure list dated 7/8.2.2007 contained only application pertaining to bio-data of persons which do not indicate about any rental income from the concerned persons and that is why Files have not been cited in the list of document. Therefore, the rental income has not been taken into account. 23. Again reply has been filed on behalf of State of Bihar against the statement of defence filed by appellant no.1 Narayan Mishra alleging therein that the case against him was registered on the basis of reliable source of information which prima facie disclosed commission of offence of disproportionate assets against the appellant no.1 and the same was investigated by the I.O. of SVU. It is wrong to say that the case was registered under political malice and by any vested interest. It has been further stated that appellant no.1 has mentioned in his statement of defence about the status of his father and his family in Orissa which does not concern with the facts in issue because the properties of his father in form of Bank balance and postal account were inherited by him after death of his father in 1993 and the same has already been accounted for. 24. So far as the agricultural income from ancestral land in Orissa has also been considered and taken into account in the application filed by the prosecution. It has been further stated on behalf of appellant no.1 that HUF created by him is separate entity which cannot be clubbed with his indivisible account. In this connection it has been pointed out on behalf of State in reply that father of appellant no.1 expired on 27.3.93 while first HUF Account was opened on 26.6.2000 with Central Bank of India, CBD, Belapur, Navi Mumbai i.e. after seven years from the date of his father. Another HUF account was opened on 10.7.2000 with HDFC Bank, Vashi Navi Mumbai. Cash amount of Rs. 7, 20,000.00 was deposited in these two Accounts within a period of few months. There is no proof on the record to link these cash deposit with the amount inherited by appellant no.1. It has been further mentioned that during the period of seven years, appellant no.1 has received only Rs. 5,28,190.50 from time to time. Thus his total cash deposits have not been satisfactorily explained with the amount inherited and received by appellant no.1. Therefore, the only explanation is that these huge amount of cash deposits were out of the ill-gotten money of appellant no.1 which was invested in share market. 25. It has been pointed out that appellant no.1 transferred rupees one lac from his indivisible SB A/C No. 80510002895 with standard charter Bank, Exhibition Road, Patna vide D-75 to Narayan Mishra HUF A/C with UTI Bank, S.P. Verma Road, Patna vide D-148 on 21.3.2006. Therefore, indivisible A/C and HUF A/C of appellant no.1 have been clubbed together. It has been further stated that zerox copy of Income Tax Return of appellant no.1, HUF receipt from IT Department for the assessment year 2001-02 to 2006-07 have already been supplied. Therefore, indivisible A/C and HUF A/C of appellant no.1 have been clubbed together. It has been further stated that zerox copy of Income Tax Return of appellant no.1, HUF receipt from IT Department for the assessment year 2001-02 to 2006-07 have already been supplied. Not only to this in addition to the above first Income Tax return File of Nr. Mishra HUF containing pages 1 to 50 was seized from his residence and the relevant pages have also been supplied to him. 26. It has been further stated that the salary income of appellant no.1 for the period from 1971 to October, 1984 was not found as it was very old period. Therefore, the salary income of check period from January, 1984 to October, 1984 was calculated on the basis of net salary amount of Rs. 2,976.65 paid to him in November, 1984 and taken into account as his income. The salary income from 1971 to December, 1983 pertains to the period prior to the check period and therefore, this income has not been taken as income during the check period. 27. It has been further mentioned in the reply that appellant no.1 has taken a plea that the ornaments recovered by the I.O. during investigation are Stri Dhan of his daughters-in-law which they had received by way of gift at the time of her marriage. Since his daughters-in-law were residing at far away places with their husbands, the ornaments were kept in Madhu Kunj for safety purposes. In this connection it has been pointed out on behalf of the State that at the time of recovery of ornaments, appellant no.1 and his family members were present, but they did not state that the ornaments were the gift items. Therefore, the contention raised by appellant no.1 is said to be after thought. In the light of above reply prayer has been made to confiscate the property of the above appellants. 28. On behalf of State of Bihar, further reply has been filed against the statement of defence filed on behalf of Satyabrat Mishra and Smt. Pooja Mishra dated 21.9.2010 mentioning therein that they have not wrongly been implicated in this case because they have been found in possession of disproportionate assets of Narayan Mishra in their names. The statement of income, expenditure and assets have been correctly computed. The statement of income, expenditure and assets have been correctly computed. It has been further stated that net salary incomer has correctly been shown in the statement of income of Satyabrat Mishra in supplementary petition filed on 30.9.2010. It has been further alleged that appellant no.3 Satyabrat Mishra has claimed income of Rs. 90,000.00 from sale of Maruti Car on 14.12.2004. In this connection it has been pointed out that above Car was purchased in May, 1999 along with other charges for Rs. 1, 97,678.00. Therefore there was a loss of Rs. 1, 07,678.00 in purchase and sale of vehicle and the same has been shown in the statement of expenditure of Satyabrat Mishra. 29. It has been further mentioned in the reply that the net profit from trading of shares through Gogia capital has correctly been calculated based on D-102. The calculated value of shares in holding in the name of Satyabrat Mishra’s D-Mat A/C with HDFC Bank and ICICI Bank has been computed based on the record provided by these two Banks vide document D-36 and document D-179 respectively. Lastly, it has been stated that appellant no.3 Satyabrat Mishra has claimed that most of the time he along with his wife and children was residing with his parents, therefore, kitchen expenditure calculated @ 33% of his salary income was almost negligible. But this claim is not tenable. In view of the above facts and circumstances prayer has been made to confiscate the property of above appellant. 30. Counter reply on behalf of Satyabrat Mishra, his wife Pooja Mishra and also on behalf of Narayan Mishra against the reply filed by the State of Bihar dated 1.3.2011 have rightly been not accepted by the trial court finding no such provision. 31. Legal points effecting merit of the allegations is needed to be discussed first. Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act defines criminal misconduct by a public servant. Its sub-section 1 (e) is specific on the point of possession of property which runs as follows: “13. 31. Legal points effecting merit of the allegations is needed to be discussed first. Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act defines criminal misconduct by a public servant. Its sub-section 1 (e) is specific on the point of possession of property which runs as follows: “13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.–(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct, - (a) -------- (b) -------- (c) -------- (d) -------- (e) if he 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. Explanation.–For the purposes of this section, “known sources of income” means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant.” Sub-section 2 prescribes punishment for misconduct. 32. Differences in opinion of parties on the point of law is possession of property by the accused public servant on his behalf to others including his family members, known sources of income, valuation of immovable property. 33. Before dealing with the above points liability of the parties or their obligation concerning burden of proof is to be discussed. There can be no doubt that innocence is the presumption and it is for the prosecution to establish the guilt (accusation) but there are certain exceptions of this principle of criminal jurisprudence which is in the offence under section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 also. There is no ambiguity in the section as there is mention that the possession which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, so once it comes that property in possession of the Government servant is disproportionate of his known source of income, it is for him to account satisfactorily. This view finds corroboration from AIR 1960 SC 7 . The case was under old Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and corresponding section is 5(3) of that Act. 34. Further something more goes in favour of the prosecution in confiscation proceeding. Section 13 of the Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009 provides for confiscation of the property pending trial or even investigation. The case was under old Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and corresponding section is 5(3) of that Act. 34. Further something more goes in favour of the prosecution in confiscation proceeding. Section 13 of the Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009 provides for confiscation of the property pending trial or even investigation. Section 19 of the Act is more clear that whenever property is confiscated that can be modified or annulled by the High Court in appeal or the affected person is acquitted by the Special Court. Consequence is return of the money or property and if not possible then affected person shall be paid the price of the property confiscated with the interest @ 5% per annum from the date of confiscation. It can be said a compensation to the affected person. No more discussion is needed as constitutional validity of the Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009 is not challenged in this proceeding. 35. Now one of the law points for deciding disproportionate property is property in possession of others/family members other than public servant can be taken into consideration or not. On this point by making reference of (2006) 282 ITR 435 (S.C.) learned counsel for the appellants submitted that property by other family members cannot be taken into consideration as government servant’s property to decide disproportionate. Another reference on his behalf is 2012(1) PLJR 197 . In the case reported in (2006) 282 ITR 435 (SC) an amount of cash amounting Rs. 30,00,000/-, seven gold biscuits weighing 819 gms, 1118 dollars, certain documents regarding purchase of immovable properties and also fixed deposit receipts in name of third parties recovered from the house of government servant where his wife was also living. A claim was made by the government servant as well as his wife that she was owner of several concerns, land was purchased for the purpose of a factory in name of Raja Shankar, Managing Director of her company and cash was for the purpose of concerns including factory that was believed also. In the case reported in 2012(1) PLJR 117 disproportionate assets are in form of two Trucks, one Sumo vehicle and two plots over which building and shops were existing including articles. That is shown explained as Trucks and Sumo vehicles were purchased from loan from Bihar State Finance Corporation in name of wife and two sons for plying the same on hire. That is shown explained as Trucks and Sumo vehicles were purchased from loan from Bihar State Finance Corporation in name of wife and two sons for plying the same on hire. One of the plots and its building is said purchased from the income of vehicles. Second block and its construction was found in joint possession of brother of the government employees. Other properties have also been explained satisfactorily but in instant case appellant no.2 Kanchan Mishra is shown housewife having no separate income save and except the property inherited on her behalf after death of her father. No loan is borrowed for business purpose. Two of the sons namely Satyabrat Mishra appellant no.3 and Subrat Mishra appellant no.5 have been shown limited income mainly from the source of their salary. Two daughter-in-laws namely Pooja Mishra appellant no.4 and Rita Pandey Mishra appellant no.6 are shown mainly obtaining or inheriting property from their parents, husbands or relations. They are also housewives. 36. Narayan Mishra appellant no.1 has one more son namely Deobrat Mishra who is married and no disproportionate property is found to him. 37. Reliance is placed on behalf of Vigilance on a case reported in AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 2464 in which property with other family members has been accepted the property of government servant. There is elaborate discussion on the point of gift to members of the family from others during check period and has not been accepted. In the instant case no gift is shown given in early years of the service or check period to any of the family members from any one including father of Narayan Mishra appellant no.1 and relations of the family. So, on this point observation of the trial court suffers with no infirmity. 38. Another legal point is known sources of income. There is no divergent view of the parties on this point which is defined also in explanation of section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. So, on this point observation of the trial court suffers with no infirmity. 38. Another legal point is known sources of income. There is no divergent view of the parties on this point which is defined also in explanation of section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In instant case this source of income has been shown for Narayan Mishra from his salary from his father, his ancestral and joint Hindu family property, rent from houses, interest of deposits, profit from shares and for other family members namely sons, their salaries, some gifts, for their wives gifts and inheritance, for his wife Kanchan Mishra inheritance of the property from her father including purchased land at Hazaribagh in name of her father. In more detail, the above claims will be discussed later at suitable places but explanation of sub-section 1 of section 13 of the P.C. Act is that known sources of income means income received from any lawful source and receipts intimated in accordance with provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being application to public servant. There is no controversy on this point also that a government servant is bound to declare his property at the time of his entry in service and thereafter to inform yearly the gain of properties/assets. In the instant case appellant no.1 has no valid paper for such declaration of all his assets. 39. Here a reference on behalf of appellants is needed to be discussed if can favour them that is a decision of Supreme Court reported in (2011) 4 SCC 402 . In this case intimation of the property receipt to superior authorities/government was in question. Such declaration was there but not in prescribed form rather on plain paper exhibited in the case and accepted to his (delinquent’s) superior authorized on this behalf but that has not been done in this case. All the acquisitions, deposits, investment or property of other nature has not been informed. 40. Next legal point is valuation of immovable properties, specifically it is said on behalf of appellants that valuation of construction over plots in his name and his family members is shown excessive, more specifically it is said that same is calculated by Assistant Engineer Arun Kumar Thakur technical wing of SVU on request of the Vigilance Department. 40. Next legal point is valuation of immovable properties, specifically it is said on behalf of appellants that valuation of construction over plots in his name and his family members is shown excessive, more specifically it is said that same is calculated by Assistant Engineer Arun Kumar Thakur technical wing of SVU on request of the Vigilance Department. Constructions have been valued by a registered valuer of income tax department on behalf of appellant no.1 but not under the authorization of Authorised Officer rather in private capacity to which Vigilance Department was not a party. Court is concerned with valuation of property in the proceeding. Rule 11 (g) of the Bihar Special Courts Rules 2010 is there to empower a delinquent public officer to contest valuation which is clear that if the delinquent public servant proposes to contest the valuation of the property the authorized officer then may take assistance of such State Government agency or Central Government Agency or any other persons or persons technically qualified as he may deem fit and proper but this power is vested in authorized officer only. If no one as in instant case prefers to contest then he is bound to accept the valuation of the Engineer who assessed property in course of enquiry (investigation), moreover there was no otherwise grudge of the Vigilance Department against appellant no.1 save and except finding the properties if disproportionate. No doubt Rule 11(g) of the Bihar Special Court Rules 2010 was not in force when the case was lodged in the year 2007 but it is basic principle of the law criminal as well as civil that defence is to be claimed for some evidence. Thus it is clear that valuation of the SVU Engineer has rightly been accepted. 41. Income minus expenditure is the saving. If the properties/assets are of more value than the saving that is disproportionate. In this case dispute is that some of the incomes of Narayan Mishra is left to be counted. Expenditure has been shown excessive and assets of others family members have also been included in the assets of appellant no.1 Narayan Mishra. 42. Court is to discuss one by one the areas which have been elaborately discussed by the authorized officer. What has been left to be added in the income of Narayan Mishra appellant no.1 is specified in the show cause. 42. Court is to discuss one by one the areas which have been elaborately discussed by the authorized officer. What has been left to be added in the income of Narayan Mishra appellant no.1 is specified in the show cause. There are several show causes in the case filed on behalf of appellants but one is joint show cause of all the family members and second set separate. Check period of this case is 1.1.1984 to 8.2.2007. Additional income is shown salary of appellant no.1 since 1971 to December, 1983 during which also he remained in service, detailed of which is not denied by the Vigilance Department. Other additional incomes are said house rent received from S.Ahmad, IPS, house rent received from David Harry Convent, rent received from students from Madhupur at Ved Nagar, assistance received from father in the year 1990-1991 for construction of house, marriage gift received from R. K. Dubey, father-in-law of Deobrat, sale of Fiat Car No. BRZ, additional receipt from money backs of LIC Policy, other incomes from surrender value of LIC Policy, maturity of Postal Terms Deposits, maturity receipt from NSC. 43. Non-inclusion of income of appellant no.1 from 1971 to December, 1983 on behalf of Vigilance Department is justified on the ground that appellant no.1 started to purchase plots and lands and Flats from 1.1.1984. Acquiring of land depends upon the saving so, in my view earliest saving can not be ignored for latest purchase or acquisition of properties even. By Vigilance Department total income of appellant no.1 is shown Rs. 94, 58,135.28. Expenditure is shown Rs. 41, 71,293.52, though income is said less and expenditure more but from the salary the same is Rs. 34, 31,490.45 is admitted. Rs. 16, 16,900.75 is said shown more towards expenditure. If that is accepted then also there is no more difference between salaried income and expenditure during check period. However, in no case it can be said that there was no saving of appellant no.1 during the period he joined the service till starting of check period. During this period the income of Narayan Mishra appellant no.1 from his salary is shown Rs. 1,49,622.00 and at that time liability of children and their education was lesser so, 50% of salaried income is accepted towards saving from the income. That is added to savings of the appellant no.1. This amount comes to Rs. 74,811.00. During this period the income of Narayan Mishra appellant no.1 from his salary is shown Rs. 1,49,622.00 and at that time liability of children and their education was lesser so, 50% of salaried income is accepted towards saving from the income. That is added to savings of the appellant no.1. This amount comes to Rs. 74,811.00. Certainly mistake has been committed in not adding under the discussed circumstance the above income as saving under the heading of income and saving of appellant no.1. It is made clear that a Fiat Car was purchased during this period which later was shown sold during check period. Once the price of Fiat is included in savings pre-check period its sale cannot be added as income during check period. 44. A handsome amount is said received from gift mainly marriage gift from father-in-law of Deobrat Mishra. If the gift was given to Deobrat Mishra that cannot be added in income of appellants, if was given to appellant no.1 and admissible also then should be informed and income tax should be paid but for the purpose of this proceeding its non-information only goes against appellant no.1. Another nature of income is said rents from houses elaborately has been discussed by the Authorized Officer apart from reasoning by the Auhorised Officer no profit in form of rent or interest can be added in income of delinquent officer if the property is disproportionate as in instant case. Towards receipt of rent, same is claimed receiving from S.Ahmad, IPS, David Harry Convent, rent from students of Hostel run in Madhupur Ved Nagar. One of the houses is at Ved Nagar consisting of two plots 517 and 518 but its resources of purchase has not been informed to the government nor any permission was obtained from the government. Its cost has been shown Rs. 18.58 lacs only while it has been valued Rs. 39.53 that clearly goes to show that this difference in value appellant no.1 was not able to explain in his own way even. Loan applied that is sanctioned also of Rs. 3 lacs, another for Rs. 2 lacs but over plot no. 517 and not for construction over plot no.518. Another loan is obtained from Maharsi Housing Developer Corporation, Mirpur, over plot no. 518 Rs. 2 lacs were sanctioned in the year 1999. Rs. 1,42,118.00 remained to be paid in the year 2003 and only Rs. 3 lacs, another for Rs. 2 lacs but over plot no. 517 and not for construction over plot no.518. Another loan is obtained from Maharsi Housing Developer Corporation, Mirpur, over plot no. 518 Rs. 2 lacs were sanctioned in the year 1999. Rs. 1,42,118.00 remained to be paid in the year 2003 and only Rs. 1,50,386.00 was paid to Maharsi Housing Developer Corporation Limited. Other loans by the same Corporation was sanctioned in the year 2004 in two installments, one of two lacs rupees and another of four lacs rupees and liability of all the loans shifted to ICICI Bank which later was paid to the ICICI Bank but not from the known source of income. 45. Assistance from father is also shown as income but not acceptable as having no document or Pass book left by father inherited by appellant no.1 discloses such amount. This much is replied for purchase of plot no. 495 from Nirala Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti in name of appellant no.1’s father and HUF deposits also. Admittedly appellant no.1’s father was solely dependent upon agriculture and his work of Purohit. Very carefully joint family income (including that of the father) has been taken into account by the Vigilance by obtaining report from concerned authorities and others that includes income from agriculture, sale of land. HUF account is opened only after years of father’s death who was residing at his native village that also after submission of return more elaborately is discussed by the Authorized Officer. 46. In discussed circumstance, self satisfactory incomes from Money Backs and LIC, surrender value of LIC Policies, maturity of Postal Item Deposits, maturity of NSC, IBP appears not acceptable specifically finding the same not within saving limit. It is pertinent to mention here that at each and every stage attempt appears to be made to create some documents. One of its examples can be taken in connection with Flat No. 204 Pawan Villa, Rukanpura, Patna. This Flat is purchased in name of appellant no.2 wife of appellant no.1. Here both the appellants are stating its purchase in name of appellant no.2 by appellant no.1 from his salaried money but this flat is purchased in the year 2002 and a return was filed on behalf of appellant no.2 for the financial year of 2003-04 that a loan was taken by Kanchan Mishra from her husband of Rs. Here both the appellants are stating its purchase in name of appellant no.2 by appellant no.1 from his salaried money but this flat is purchased in the year 2002 and a return was filed on behalf of appellant no.2 for the financial year of 2003-04 that a loan was taken by Kanchan Mishra from her husband of Rs. 3, 50,000.00 at the interest of 4% to show her income tax payee also. Witness no.132 an income tax officer is there to depose the same. 47. Towards expenditure a ticket was purchased from Patna to Delhi to Hyderabad to Bombay to Patna again for him, his wife and one Leesa Anand for Rs. 1,05,936.00 only. Claim is made for Rs. 80,410.00 towards his own fare and fare of his wife through airways as he availed LTC entitled for the amount, no doubt on reimbursement only. Some paper is shown remaining with appellant no.1 for reimbursement, has not been accepted due to no document of reimbursement before Authorised Officer. A senior IPS officer is claiming LTC facility once in his entire service period may not be denied, finding no paper which he was possessing. No care has been taken for the same as such this amount Rs. 80,410.00 is deducted from the heading expenditure. No doubt that will increase the amount of saving. Expenses of Subrat Mishra during his engineering study at Bangalore and of Deobrat Mishra of Pune is doubted but appears no scope as same was verified by witnesses including Principal of the institution elaborately discussed by the Authorized officer including having no admissible document with appellants. Appellant no.1 was entitled for newspaper, library expenses to some extent is admitted to the parties but only after its reimbursement which has not been done in this case. 48. Loan from Maharsi Housing Developer Corporation Limited if was not totally paid then should not be shown the expenditure is the submission. The amount which is paid is from the known source mainly from salaried account has not appeared is not of much importance. This loan was admittedly shown to justify construction cost of house existed over plot no. 518 which has been found disproportionate. The property found disproportionate in itself speaks that its source was not legal source (known source of income). Once it is taken from occupation of its owner it should not be doubled by showing in expenditure item also. This loan was admittedly shown to justify construction cost of house existed over plot no. 518 which has been found disproportionate. The property found disproportionate in itself speaks that its source was not legal source (known source of income). Once it is taken from occupation of its owner it should not be doubled by showing in expenditure item also. It easily can be explained that the loan amount was claimed (obtained) for construction work and construction work is also there, the money from where the same was constructed if does not appear then really money (loan amount) was expended over construction of the house for which purpose it was obtained. However, 3,81,089.00 is said remained to be paid, so in discussed circumstance this amount is deducted from the expenditure. There can be no basis to minimize inverifiable kitchen expenditure from 33% to 10% when same is assessed on salaried income only. So, total under this heading (expenditure head) Rs. 8,410.00 fare and Rs. 3,81,089.00 house loan is deducted which will increase the saving affecting disproportionate amount to that extent. 49. Several claims are there about income of Kanchan Mishra but same has been minimized to the extent that she was housewife of appellant no.1 and in that capacity only have some income. One of such income is inheritance of plot nos. 1749 and 1514, area 20 decimals and 1.5 decimals only at Singhani, district Hazaribagh from his father Udai Nath Tripathi. Admittedly these plots were purchased through a sale deed on 17.10.1985 in name of Udai Nath Tripathi, father of appellant no.2. Some construction is also there of boundary and guard room. These plots are said to be purchased by appellant no.1 in name of his father-in-law Udai Nath Tripathi. Witnesses are examined on behalf of Vigilance on the point of status of his father-in-law and witness no.12 is specific on this point that appellant no.1 was married with appellant no.2 of the same village, daughter of Udai Nath Tripathi whose financial position was too week to purchase an inch of land at Hazaribagh. He was selling his land for his livelihood. So, these plots cannot be said inherited as land of her father to increase the income of Kanchan Mishra. Other deposits or shares admittedly are purchased by her husband never be added in her income. He was selling his land for his livelihood. So, these plots cannot be said inherited as land of her father to increase the income of Kanchan Mishra. Other deposits or shares admittedly are purchased by her husband never be added in her income. No doubt being the sole heir of her father she sold her land at her native place at Orissa for Rs. 25,000/- after death of her father which really is the income of Kanchan Mishra and accepted also. Expenditure is there in her name has been calculated to Rs. 46,965.84. So, this difference of Rs. 21,965.84 plus value of the assets in her name shall be added in disproportionate assets of her husband as has been done in the case. 50. Disproportionate assets of Satyabrat Mishra, one of the sons of Narayan Mishra is accepted as assets of appellant no.1. His income has been shown Rs. 20,38,300.03, expenditure is shown of Rs. 8,6,461.63. Value of disproportionate property is shown Rs. 16,94,251.79, his expenditure includes Maruti Car 800 is said funded by his father-in-law which was shown in the year 2004 for a sum of Rs. 19,000/- but purchase of the said Maruti Van is disbelieved basing no document (reliable evidence). Maruti Car is not listed as assets to be confiscated. The same is well discussed by the Authorised Officer with no mistake. 51. Income from sale of HDFC M.F.(Folio No. 213, 1622) and Satyabrat Mishra’s 650 shares of which 117 shares were allotted in cashless option meaning thereby free of cost has not been considered as acquisition of Satyabrat Mishra is raised in this Court also. All the shares have been shown purchased vide D 36, 117 remained balances is well discussed by the Authorised Officer stating that Satyabrat Mishra was a low scale employee has been drawing monthly salary Rs. 6223.00 besides other allowances and was not in a position to purchase the above shares. D/ 45 is a document to indicate his salary discussed by the Authorised Officer also. Satyabrat Mishra was getting excess amount in salary is not supported by any acceptable document. 52. Satyabrat Mishra’s wife has also been found in possession of disproportionate property of Rs. 28,67,667.21. Her income left to be added is said Rs. D/ 45 is a document to indicate his salary discussed by the Authorised Officer also. Satyabrat Mishra was getting excess amount in salary is not supported by any acceptable document. 52. Satyabrat Mishra’s wife has also been found in possession of disproportionate property of Rs. 28,67,667.21. Her income left to be added is said Rs. 4,00,000.00 received from her father as a marriage gift has not been rightly accepted, finding no document for the same and its non-information in income tax return even by her husband. Another money of Rs. 6,00,000.00 is said to be received from her brother-in-law for investment in equity money in the year 2003-04 free of interest. In this connection D200 can be referred that an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- only was received which was certified in her Standard Chartered Bank saving A/c no. 805100361-1 on 13th December, it was debited in account of Satyabrat Mishra, again was transferred in A/C no. 80530004869. Payment of money by Vikas Trivedi in reality has not been accepted as circumstance was existing that appellant no.1’s assets was found in possession of other family members. Such payment of Rs. 1,50,000 free of interest is said received from one Dharmendara Singh is also not believable, rightly has not been accepted. Kitchen expense of Satyabrat Mishra is said was not bearing by them as they were residing with their father-in-law but A/C of Satyabrat Mishra opened in Vijaya Bank at Patna on 5.3.1999 is there to show his residential address A3/28, Bailey Road, Sanjay Gandhi Botanical Garden, Patna-1. Reference can be made of D 82. So I find no mistake committed by the Authorised Officer on this point also. D Mat A/C of Satyabrat Mishra is different from D Mat A/C of his wife. Both have purchased shares on the same day. Their brokerages are different finds corporation from D-179. So, this much has also been correctly decided by Authorised Officer. 53. Appellant Rita Pandey Mishra, one of the daughter-in-laws of Narayan Mishra is only daughter of her parents. Land is purchased in her name at Patna as well as at Bhopal. Construction is also existing over the plot. Their brokerages are different finds corporation from D-179. So, this much has also been correctly decided by Authorised Officer. 53. Appellant Rita Pandey Mishra, one of the daughter-in-laws of Narayan Mishra is only daughter of her parents. Land is purchased in her name at Patna as well as at Bhopal. Construction is also existing over the plot. Plot and its construction at Bhopal is exempted from confiscation, finding its purchase from known source of income of Rita Pandey Mishra as purchased from the fund received from sale of ancestral lands at Gaya in the year 2005 and later but land at Patna is purchased in the year 2004. Plot at Patna is purchased from Shyam Grih Nirman Samiti, Rukunpura, Patna of 1,312 square feet, total expenditure is shown Rs. 1,99,328.62 . Total cost with construction has been shown Rs. 3,12,275.62. Rs. 3,00,000.00 is said received from Manoj Kumar in the year 2004. On 24.4.2004 two sale deeds are executed by Rita Pandey Mishra’s mother in favour of Manoj Kumar but sale deed is showing reason behind the sale, personal loan and other necessities, nothing remained to pay. Rita Pandey Mishra’s father and mother were totally dependent on their agriculture having a Tractor also. Any amount paid for any purpose has not appeared rather Tractor was not inherited by Rita Pandey Mishra. This much also is well discussed by prescribed authority. 54. For Subrat Mishra it is said that he has worked to different organizations, had gained profits from share trading also. His income has been shown Rs. 2,97,941.00, there remains no question of purchase of any share. He never appeared before the S.V.U. nor there was any admissible document to corroborate his income. So, I find no mistake committed on this score also. He has been shown in possession of disproportionate property of Rs. 5,20,216.20, his wife of Rs. 5,66,726.31 certainly of his father. 55. Some ornaments of gold and silver worth Rs. 7,17,072.00 is found from the residential house of Narayan Mishra at Ved Nagar, Rukunpura is said of daughter-in-laws is not believable at all. Reason behind it is that it is not being claimed by appellant no.1’s wife. 5,20,216.20, his wife of Rs. 5,66,726.31 certainly of his father. 55. Some ornaments of gold and silver worth Rs. 7,17,072.00 is found from the residential house of Narayan Mishra at Ved Nagar, Rukunpura is said of daughter-in-laws is not believable at all. Reason behind it is that it is not being claimed by appellant no.1’s wife. One of the expenditures of appellants is rent of Lockers, first in name of appellant no.1 at Boring Road, second also in name of appellant no.1 at Rukunpura, third and fourth in name of appellant no.2 at Belapur Navi, Mumbai, so no question arises about keeping ornaments of daughter-in-laws in residential house by appellant nos.1 and 2 for the purpose of its safety. 56. No other point remains to discuss to increase the income, decrease the expenditure effecting savings and assets. Total amount as discussed which can be added in appellants’ savings is income from salary Rs. 74,811/-, towards expenditure, Rs. 80,410/- air fare and Rs. 3,81,089/- towards loan from Maharsi Housing Developer Corporation Limited. Total amount comes to 5,36,310/-. So, appellants are observed entitle to retain assets of the above value entitling their release from the property decided to be confiscated. This responsibility also I do not want to leave upon Authorised Officer. They (exempted assets) are identified as item no.4 of immovable assets and item nos. 5, 9, 13, 58 and 61 of movable assets. It is made clear that total value of the above property is not accurate to Rs. 5, 36,310/- but difference is in hundred in favour of appellants easily can be avoided. Item no.4 of the list to be confiscated for immovable property is said sold but in the year 2008 while the case is lodged in the year 2007 and its sale proceeds (price or consideration money) remained with appellants for their benefit so, in no case it changes the interest of appellants. 57. On the observations made above, evidence on record and circumstances of the case, the appeal is allowed in part. Only Rs. 5, 36,310/- is less declared disproportionate. In clear words disproportionate property is declared of Rs. 1, 34, 69,907.97. With such modification, judgment and order dated 01.02.2012 passed in Special Case No. 01/2010 arising out of Special Vigilance Unit Case No.06/2007 by Authorised Officer, Special Court – II, Vigilance, Patna is confirmed. 58. Only Rs. 5, 36,310/- is less declared disproportionate. In clear words disproportionate property is declared of Rs. 1, 34, 69,907.97. With such modification, judgment and order dated 01.02.2012 passed in Special Case No. 01/2010 arising out of Special Vigilance Unit Case No.06/2007 by Authorised Officer, Special Court – II, Vigilance, Patna is confirmed. 58. It is made clear that from the confiscation list item no.4 of immovable assets and item nos. 5, 9, 13, 58 and 61 of movable assets are exempted for confiscation. Rest shall be confiscated as decided and directed by Authorised Officer.