JUDGMENT R.N. BISWAL, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.09.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack in. T. R. Case No.141 of 2007 convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as P.C. Act) and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac) and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for a further period of six months. 2. The appellant entered into Government service as a Junior Engineer in March 1981 and was posted at different places and while he was working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) OTDC, Bhubaneswar, getting reliable information that he amassed wealth both movable and immovable in his name and in the name of his wife disproportionate to his known source of income, an enquiry was taken up. On the strength of a search warrant issued by the learned C.J.M., Cuttack his rented house at Bhubaneswar and the government quarters at WALAMI Project, Pratapnagari, Cuttack were simultaneously searched on 15.12.1993 by the Vigilance Personnel of Vigilance Cell Cuttack in presence of witnesses and the appellant and his wife and it was found that during the check period i.e. 27.2.1981 to 15.12.1993 his income was Rs.2,36,500/- and expenditure Rs.1 ,82,425/- and as such his probable saving was Rs.54,075/- but he was found in possession of property both movable and immovable to the tune of Rs.3,37,562.95 paise in his name and in the name of his wife. So, the disproportionate asset was Rs.2,83,487.95 paise during the check period. On 3.1.1994 the Inspector of Vigilance Cell, Cuttack (P.W.9) lodged a written report in this regard before the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Cuttack Division, Cuttack and accordingly Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.2 of 1994 corresponding to V.G.R. case No.2/ 94 of the Court of C.J.M. Cuttack was registered' under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (e) of the P.C. Act and the S.P. (Vigilance) directed P.W.9 to investigate into the case. Accordingly, P.W.9 investigated into it and after conclusion of investigation and obtaining sanction order from the competent authority submitted charge sheet before the C.J.M. Cuttack under the aforesaid Sections showing that the appellant was in possession of property both movable and immovable in his name and the name of his wife, Archana Tripathy to the tune of Rs.3, 12,058.65 paise disproportionate to his known source of income for which he could not satisfactorily account for. After preparation of two sets of copies of police paper, the learned C.J.M. transferred the case record along with the connected papers including the copies of police papers to the Special Judge (Vigilance) Bhubaneswar, who registered the case as T.R. Case No.111 of 1999 and took cognizance of the offence under the aforesaid sections. Sometime thereafter, the case was transferred to the Court of Special Judge (Vigilance) Cuttack, who renumbered it as T.R. Case No. 141 of 2007 and framed charge against the appellant for the aforesaid offence. The plea of the appellant was that even though he entered into Government service in 1976 and made a substantial income from his salary, it was not taken into account. His income from house rent was also not taken into consideration. The income of his wife from Diary Farm and Prawn Culture business and the property gifted ,to her at the time of marriage were added to his income and assets illegally. 3. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined nine witnesses, as against, three witnesses examined on behalf of the appellant. After assessing the evidence on record, the trial Court held that during the check period, the total income of the appellant was RS.2,89,250/-, his expenditure and the expenditure of his family members was Rs.2,04,087.72 paise, which was rounded up to 2,04,088/- and as such his probable saving was RS.85, 162/-, but he was found to have acquired movable and immovable property of Rs.3,38,339/- in his name and in the name of his wife, so, the disproportionate assets were of RS.2,53, 177/- which he failed to account for satisfactorily. Accordingly the trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (e) of the P.C. Act and sentenced him there under which is under challenge in this appeal as stated earlier. 4. Accordingly the trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (e) of the P.C. Act and sentenced him there under which is under challenge in this appeal as stated earlier. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as found from the evidence of D.W.1, Archana Tripathy, (wife of the appellant) 15 to 16 Bhari (150-160 gms) of gold ornaments were gifted to her by her father at the time of her marriage This has also been reflected by the appellant in his property statement (Ext.20). As found from the evidence of P.W.3, at the time of search of the rented house of the appellant, D.W.1 had also stated that the gold ornaments seized, had been gifted to her by her father at the time of her marriage. But the trial Court disbelieved it holding that the appellant in his property statement reflected that his wife, (D.W.1 ) was having 200 gms of gold ornaments, but on 15.12.1993 during search of the rented house of the appellant only 74.550 gms. of gold ornaments were recovered. In fact D.W.1 during his cross-examination stated that she sold some gold ornaments for Rs.30,000/- during 1993. So, it can be inferred that she sold 75.450 to 76.450 grams of gold in the year 1993. According to learned counsel for the appellant adding the value of 74.50 gms gold to the asset of the appellant is absolutely illegal. On perusal of the trial Court judgment, it is found that the trial Court disbelieved that 200 grams of gold ornaments were gifted to the wife of the appellant (D.W.1) by her father at the time of her marriage not only because at the time of house search 74.45 grams of gold ornaments were found, but also the property statement given by the appellant on 15.3.1993 (Ext.20) reflected that 200 grams of gold ornaments were acquired by D.W.1 in the year 1981, while D.W.1 in her evidence stated that she got married to the appellant in the year 1980. So the trial Court rightly held that the seized gold ornaments were not gifted to D.W.1 at the time of her marriage in the year 1980. I am not in one with the submission of learned counsel for the appellant in this regard. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that as it appear from Ext. So the trial Court rightly held that the seized gold ornaments were not gifted to D.W.1 at the time of her marriage in the year 1980. I am not in one with the submission of learned counsel for the appellant in this regard. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that as it appear from Ext. A, Ghanasyam Tripathy, the father of appellant authorized the appellant to collect rent from his self acquired house situated at Berhampur and enjoy the same since due to his old age, he along with his wife was staying with him, but despite it, the income derived from the rent of the said house was not taken into consideration by the trial Court, which is illegal. D.W.2. the brother of appellant in his evidence stated that Ext. A was executed in favour of the appellant to collect rent from the house mentioned therein on the apprehension that there might arise any dispute at the time of execution of house rent agreement with the tenants. Since the recital in Ext.A did not tally with the evidence of D. W.2 and the parents of the appellant nor any of their belongings could be seen by the raiding party at the time of raid of the house of the appellant, the trial Court did not rely upon it. Moreover, it held that if in fact house rent was collected from the house as described in Ext.A and utilized for the maintenance of the parents of the appellant, then there could be no saving from the house rent. Furthermore, since Ext:A was not produced at the time of raid or investigation of the case, the finding of the trial Court cannot be branded as illegal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that as found from the evidence of D.W.1, her father gifted her three heads of Jorsey Cow all of whom had conceived, at the time of her marriage in the year 1980. All the three cows delivered in her husband's residence: Each cow was giving 10 to 15 litres of milk per day. She sold the milk in the colony and hotels from 1981 to 1989 and earned Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per annum. In the year 1989 the cattle increased to eight in number and she sold all the cattle in the same year. She sold the milk in the colony and hotels from 1981 to 1989 and earned Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per annum. In the year 1989 the cattle increased to eight in number and she sold all the cattle in the same year. But, the trial Court erroneously disbelieved the claim of milk business of D.W.1, only because during cross-examination she could not give any data as to the expenditure made for each cow nor could she produce any ducument in respect of her milk business and further she could not name the customers to whom she was selling milk and the name of persons to whom he sold the cattle and the sale proceeds thereof. Admittedly, no permission was obtained by the appellant for starting of milk business by his wife. There is no document to show that in fact D.W.1 was running milk business. In her cross examination, she could not name the person to whom she was selling milk and the name of the person whom she sold the cattle. She also failed to say about the expenditure towards maintenance of each cow. So, the trial Court rightly did not believe that D.W.1 was running milk business. 7. learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as found from the evidence of D.W.3 (appellant) in the year 1976 he was engaged as N.M.R. in Bargarh Electrical Construction Division on a salary of Rs.540/- per month and continued as such till 1979 and during that period he received Rs.19,000/- towards his salary and that from 1979 till 1981 he worked as an electrician under Burla-Sambalpur Irrigation Division and received Rs.11 ,000/- as salary which has been supported by documentary evidence viz Ext. B, C to C/3 and D to D/4. During 1976 to 1981 he saved Rs.18000/-. But the trial Court illegally held that the documents in respect of his previous salary have no evidentiary value. Ext. C is a certificate shown to have been granted by the Executive Engineer, Electrical Construction Division which indicates that the appellant was a student trainee under his Division from 1.6.1974 to 31.12.1974. Ext.C/1 is also a certificate shown to have been granted on 4.12.1976 by the then Asst. Engineer General Electrical Sub-Division NO.III (R & B) Berhampur which indicates that the appellant was a student trainee under his Sub-Division from 1.1.1976 to 30.6.1976. Ext.C/1 is also a certificate shown to have been granted on 4.12.1976 by the then Asst. Engineer General Electrical Sub-Division NO.III (R & B) Berhampur which indicates that the appellant was a student trainee under his Sub-Division from 1.1.1976 to 30.6.1976. Ext.C/2 is a certificate shown to have been granted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Electrical Construction Sub-Division, Bargarh, which indicates that the appellant was working under the said Division from 10.8.1976 to 31.7.1979 as N.M.R. Exts C and C/1 show that the appellant was a student trainee from 1.6.1974 to 31.12.1974 and 1.1.1976 to 30.6.1976, so there was no scope for him to save anything Ext.C/2 shows that the year of engagement and the year when the appellant ceased to work as N.M.R. have been interpolated. The author of the certificate has not been examined. So, the trial Court rightly did not rely upon it. I am one with the finding of the trial Court that there is no reliable evidence to show that appellant was serving as N.M.R. from 1976 to 79. Ext. 'B' the duplicate Service Book of the appellant shows that he joined as an Electrician Grade-II(W/C) on 7.2.1979 and was relieved there from with effect from 26.2.1981. Ext. D, the pay particulars of the said period shows that the appellant received Rs.1 0977.15 paise during this period. But there is no document to show that he saved any amount during the said period. Moreover, this period does not fall within the check period. So, the trial Court rightly did not add anything to the income of the appellant for the said period. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that as found from the evidence on record, the appellant obtained permission from his department before his wife (D.W.l) purchased a car and AC.0.126 decimals of land in her name from her own Income. But the trial Court disbelieved that the same were purchased by D.W.1 from her own income on the ground that had she purchased the same from her own income, the appellant was not required to obtain departmental permission for such purchase and accordingly held that the appellant purchased the same in the name of D.W.1. According to learned counsel for the appellant, this reasoning is quite illegal and absurd in view of Rule 21 (I) of the Orissa Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred as Conduct Rules). According to learned counsel for the appellant, this reasoning is quite illegal and absurd in view of Rule 21 (I) of the Orissa Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred as Conduct Rules). At this stage it would be profitable to quote sub-rule (I) and (3) of Rule 21 of the Conduct Rules, which read as follows: "21.(1) No Government servant shall except with the previous knowledge of the prescribed authority acquire or dispose of any immovable property by lease, mortgage, purchase, sale, gift or otherwise, either in his own name or in the name of any member of his family or a benamidar; Provided that any such transaction conducted otherwise than through a regular or reputed dealer shall require the previous sanction of the prescribed authority. Xx xx xx xx xx Xx xx xx xx xx” (3) A Government servant who either in his own name or in the name of any member of his family enters into any transaction concerning any movable property, exceeding in value of Rs. 4000/- in case of gazetted officers and Rs.2000/- in case of non-Gazetted officers, whether by way of purchase, sale or otherwise, shall forthwith report such transaction to the prescribed authority referred to in sub rule (1); Provided that no Government servant shall, except with the previous sanction of Government either in his own name or in the name of any member of his family enter into any transaction with or through any person, other than a reputed dealer or agent of standing. Explanation:- For the purpose of this sub-rule, the expression "movable property" includes inter alia, the following property, namely:- (a) Jewe1lery insurance policies, shares, securities and debentures; (b) loans advanced by such Government servant whether secured or not; (c) motor cars, motor cycles, horses or any other means of conveyance." So, as per sub-rule (1) of Rule 21 of the Conduct Rules, 1959, a Government servant cannot acquire or dispose of any immovable property in any mode in his name or in the name of any member of his family or a Benamidar without the pervious knowledge of the competent authority. If any such transaction is conducted otherwise than through a regular or reputed dealer previous sanction of the competent authority is required. If any such transaction is conducted otherwise than through a regular or reputed dealer previous sanction of the competent authority is required. Similarly, as per sub-rule (3) of Rule 21 of the aforesaid Rules, if a Government servant enters into any transaction concerning any movable property exceeding in value of Rs.4000/- in case of gazetted officer and Rs.2000/- in case of non-gazetted officer, either in his name or in the name of any of his family member forth with report such transaction to the appropriate authority. If he enters into any such transaction with or through any person other than a reputed dealer or agent of standing must obtain previous sanction of Government. So the finding of the trial Court that permission is not required for purchase of any movable or immovable property by any family member including wife of a Government servant in his/her name out of his/her income cannot be said as illegal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that even if such permission is not required, it cannot be held that D. W.1 did not, purchase the car and land from her own income only because the appellant obtained permission for such purchase. There is ample evidence that D.W.1 had her independent income out of Prawn culture. P.W.9 the I.O. himself has stated that on the basis of information given by the Income Tax Authority he held that the net income of D.W.1 from prawn culture business was Rs.96,222/- during the financial year 1989-90 and 1990-91. This fact has also been reflected in clause (f), of the charge sheet under income heading which reads as follows: Income from prawn farming of Smt. Archana Tripathy, wife of Susanta Kumar Tripathy during the financial year 1989-90 Rs.26,000/- arid during the year 1990-91 is Rs.70,222 total Rs.96,222/- D. W.1 is an income tax assessee and submitted her income tax returns from 1988 till date. According to learned counsel for the appellant the trial Court erroneously held that the appellant run Prawn culture business Benami in the name of his wife (D.W.1). According to learned counsel for the appellant the trial Court erroneously held that the appellant run Prawn culture business Benami in the name of his wife (D.W.1). The trial Court disbelieved the claim of D.W.I that she was running prawn culture business on the ground that the sale deed executed in the year 1991 (Ext.2) reflected that she was doing household work and that during her cross-examination she stated that in the year 1993 she sold some gold ornaments to raise funds for starting prawn culture business, meaning thereby that till 1993 she had not started prawn culture business and that D.W.I submitted the income tax returns on 31.7.1990 for the assessment year 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91 instead of submitting year wise in due time, with ulterior motive. As found from Ext.3, on 9.12.1988 D. W.1 took A. 3.99 decimals of land on lease at the rate of Rs.2000/- per year for 15 years for prawn culture business. It has been reflected in the charge sheet that D.W.I earned Rs.26,000/- during the financial year 1989-90 and Rs.70,222/- during the financial year 1990-91 from prawn farming. It is also found from the evidence of the I.O. (P.W.9) that on the basis of information furnished by the income tax authority he gave relaxation of Rs.96,222/-as the relevant income tax returns indicated the same to be the income of D.W.I Under such premises, only because in the sale deed executed in the year 1991 (Ext.12), it has been reflected that she was doing house-hold work and that during cross examination., it could be elicited from her that during the year 1993 she sold some of her gold ornament to raise funds to start prawn culture business, but the claim of gift of gold ornaments was disbelieved, the trial Court ought not to have held that the appellant was running the said business in the name of his wife, in absence of any evidence to that effect. The Court below ought to have taken into consideration the income of the wife of appellant for the year 1991-92 and 1992-93 from the prawn culture business, particularly when she has submitted income tax returns for the said period as per Ext.G/3 and G/4, to be her own income. Ext.G/3 shows that D.W.1 earned Rs.25,202/- in the year 199192 and Ext.G/4 shows that she earned Rs.26,009/- in the year 1992-93 from her business. Ext.G/3 shows that D.W.1 earned Rs.25,202/- in the year 199192 and Ext.G/4 shows that she earned Rs.26,009/- in the year 1992-93 from her business. So, in toto, she earned Rs. 51,221/- in these two years which requires to be deducted from the alleged unexplained income of Rs.2,53, 177/-. On deduction of the said amount from the unexplained disproportionate asset it (disproportionate) will come to Rs.2,01 ,966/-. In the case of Ashok Tshering Bhutia v. State of Sikkim AIR 2011 Supreme Court 1363, the appellant therein joined the Special Branch of Police in the State of Sikkim as a constable in 1972. He faced trial for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e.) of the P.C. Act. It was found that during the period between 1987 to 1995 he amassed wealth of Rs.271613.69/- paise disproportionate to his known source of income which he could not explain. In this context, the Apex Court held as follows: "Even if the said amount is spread over the period from 1987 to 1996, the alleged unexplained income remains merely a marginal/paltry sum which any government employee can save every year". In the present case a sum of Rs.2,01 ,966/- remains unexplained. If the side amount is spread over the period from 1981 to 1993 then the alleged unexplained income remains a paltry sum which any government employee can save every year as per the decision cited above. 10. Therefore, under such premises the appeal is allowed, the judgment of the trial Court is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act and he is set at liberty. The seized assets, both movable and immovable including the documents be released in favour of the appellant and his wife. The bail bonds shall be cancelled. Appeal allowed.