Judgment :- 1. The accused/appellant has directed this appeal against the judgment dated 21.08.2002 rendered by the learned Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai, in C.C.No.186 of 1997, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and awarding the sentence of two years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment, further imprisonment of two months. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant E. Ganesan joined Customs Department, Madras as LDC in the year 1962 and subsequently, he was promoted as UDC and in the year 1977 he was selected as Preventive Officer and was posted at various places, in the customs Department including Madras Airport Customs and Airport Cargo Transhipment Section during the period from December 1983 to January 1992. The accused hailed from a poor family and not inherited any property from his parents. He was married to Smt. G. Kamala in the year 1964, who hailed from a middle class family from Karaikudi and was not engaged in any profession. They have six daughters and one son and of them, four daughters were married and the rest of them are studying. 3. The check period has been fixed from 09.12.1983 to 10.07.1992. The value of the assets of the appellant at the beginning of check period was fixed at Rs.3,25,270/-. The income of the appellant during the check period from 09.12.1983 to 10.01.1992 was arrived at Rs.13,07,697.25/-. The expenditure incurred by the appellant and his family members during the check period was fixed at Rs.6,52,652.14/-. The assets of the appellant and his family members at the end of the check period was valued at Rs.23,84,550. Thus according to the prosecution, the assets acquired by the appellant and his family members during the check period comes to Rs.20,59,280.06/- and after deducting the expenditure incurred by the appellant from his income received during the check period, the likely savings of the appellant from the income received during the check period was arrived at Rs.6,55,045.11/-and therefore, the value of the disproportionate assets in the hands of the appellant and his family members at the end of check period is Rs.14,04,234.95/-. 4. 4. As the appellant and his wife were not able to satisfactorily explain the sources for possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.14,04,234.95, the Inspector of Police, CBI, after investigation registered an offence under Section 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 5. On the basis of the evidence collected by the prosecution, learned Additional Special Judge for CBI cases on consideration framed charges against the appellant for the offences under Section 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused/appellant denied the charges and prayed for trial. 6. At the trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 50 as their witnesses and produced documents Exs.P.1 to 105. 7. The learned Additional Special Judge, on appreciation of evidence, found the appellant guilty for the offences aforesaid and sentenced him as indicated above. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed this appeal. 8. Mr. B. Sriramulu, the learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution was not justified in alleging that both the appellant and his wife Smt. Kamala have not satisfactorily explained the sources of possession of disproportionate assets, on the other hand, Mrs. Kamala, who was cited as one of the witnesses of the prosecution was not examined in this case, obviously her evidence would prove that she possessed sources of income mostly in money lending business as spoken to by P.W.13, Thiru Arunachalam, P.W.14 Thiru Murugesan, P.W.15 Smt. Meena and P.W.16 Smt. Mala and P.W.29. Thriu Shanmugam and that she had purchased the properties standing in her name out of the income derived by her from the said business. The learned senior counsel pointed out that the evidence of P.W.22 R.Rajagopalan Auditor and P.W.35 Jayanarasimhan, Income Tax Officer indicated that Mrs. Kamala, wife of the appellant is an income tax assessee. Further, pointing out to the evidence of P.W.1, Senthilvel who accorded sanction admitted that in Ex.P.2 sanction order, there is no averment to the effect that Kamala was dependent on the appellant and that she had no independent income. The learned senior counsel would submit that as Kamala had independent source of income and if her income and properties are considered separately, then the accusation of disproportionate assets against the appellant will not be available to the prosecution. 9. Mr. The learned senior counsel would submit that as Kamala had independent source of income and if her income and properties are considered separately, then the accusation of disproportionate assets against the appellant will not be available to the prosecution. 9. Mr. B. Sriramulu, learned senior counsel further contended that the prosecution failed to prove that the properties in the name of wife of the appellant was benami of the accused/appellant and various items of properties which it attributes to the accused/appellant are held by him directly or even indirectly. The learned senior counsel strenuously contended that there was nothing placed on record before the court to show that the appellant had any concern with the said assets much less, ownership. If the said items are excluded from the assets of the appellant, it cannot be said that the appellant holds any assets or properties in excess of his known sources of income. 10. The senior counsel for the appellant submitted that from the evidence of the prosecution, the fact of benami purchase is not established, as such the appellant is not required to give any explanation for the source of the funds utilized for the purchasing of those items of property. The senior counsel submitted that in the absence of any material or evidence placed on record to show that the funds required for the purchase of the property standing in the name of his wife were provided by the appellant and the alleged transaction is benami no offence under Section 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of the Act is proved against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt, and the appellant deserves acquittal of the charges levelled against him. The counsel relied on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Kishanand Agnihotri Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 1977 SC 796 in support of his aforesaid contention. 11. As against the abovesaid contentions, Mr. N. Chandra Seharan, learned counsel for CBI submitted that from the evidence of the prosecution, it is proved that the properties were purchased by the appellant benami in the name of his wife Smt. Kamala. He would submit that the appellant did not give any reasonable explanation for the availability of funds for the purchase of the items of properties. N. Chandra Seharan, learned counsel for CBI submitted that from the evidence of the prosecution, it is proved that the properties were purchased by the appellant benami in the name of his wife Smt. Kamala. He would submit that the appellant did not give any reasonable explanation for the availability of funds for the purchase of the items of properties. It is contended that in view of the earnings of the appellant from 9.12.1983 to 10.1.1992, the properties acquired in the name of his wife definitely falls under the definition of "disproportionate properties" as defined under the Act and the trial court has committed no error in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the alleged offence. 12. I have considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record as also the evidence of prosecution and the defence available on record. 13. Before considering the evidence, I would like to consider legal aspect of the matter. In this case, it is not in dispute that various items of properties namely, (a) Plot No.4, Ganapathy Colony, Selaiyur (b) Plot No. 173, Selaiyur (c) Plot at Marugal lane (d) Plot NO. 85 Mahalakshmi Nagar, Selaiyur (f) Tiled house and land at No. 92, South Car Street, Karaikudi (g) Plot No. 162, Chitlapakkam Agricultural land at No. 162 Chitlapakkam (h) Plot at Chitlapakkam (i) Plot No.726, Devaraj Nagar, Mattambalam (i) Plot at Devaraj Nagar, Mattambalam, Chitlapakkam and Plot No. 173, Selaiyur are all in the name of Smt. Kamala, wife of the appellant. 14. As per the case of the prosecution, the funds required for the purchase of the properties and the construction of the house were provided by the appellant and the alleged transaction is entered benami in the name of his wife. In this situation, the initial burden lies on the prosecution to prove that the alleged transaction was benami and funds required for the purchase of the plots and construction of the house were provided by the appellant. If the said fact is established by the prosecution, then a rebuttable presumption arises against the appellant to give explanation with regard to the sources for the alleged amount spent on the purchase of those plots and construction of the house. 15. If the said fact is established by the prosecution, then a rebuttable presumption arises against the appellant to give explanation with regard to the sources for the alleged amount spent on the purchase of those plots and construction of the house. 15. In Kishanand Agnihotri's case (1977) 1 SCC 816 = 1977 SC 796 while considering the onus of proof for establishing benami transaction, the Apex Court has held as under: "The burden of showing that a particular transaction is benami of the owner is not the real owner always rest on the person asserting it to be so and this burden has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidence of a definite character which would either directly prove the fact of benami or establish circumstances unerringly and reasonably raising an inference of that fact" 16. What standard of proof is necessary is well explained in the case of Jaydayal Poddar (D) through legal heirs and another Vs. Mst. Bibi Hazra and others (1974) 1 SCC 3 wherein it is laid down as below: "The essence of a benami is the intention of the party or parties concerned ; and not unoften, such intention is shrouded in a thick veil which cannot be easily pierced through. But such difficulties do not relieve the person asserting the transaction to be benami of any part of the serious onus that rests on him ; nor justify the acceptance of mere conjectures or surmises, as a substitute for proof. The reason is that a deed is a solemn document prepared and executed after considerable deliberation, and the person expressly shown as the purchaser or transferee in the deed, starts with the initial presumption in his favour that the apparent state of affairs is the real state of affairs. The reason is that a deed is a solemn document prepared and executed after considerable deliberation, and the person expressly shown as the purchaser or transferee in the deed, starts with the initial presumption in his favour that the apparent state of affairs is the real state of affairs. Though the question, whether a particular sale is benami or not, is largely one of fact, and for determining this question, no absolute formulae or acid test, uniformly applicable in all situations, can be laid down ; yet in weighing the probabilities and for gathering the relevant indicia, the Courts are usually guided by these circumstances: (1) the source from which the purchase money came' (2) the nature and possession of the property, after the purchase ; (3)motive, if any, for giving the transaction a benami colour; (d) the position of the parties and the relationship, if any, between the claimant and the alleged benamidar; (5) the custody of the title-deeds after the sale and (6) the conduct of the parties concerned in dealing with the property after the sale. The above indicia are not exhaustive and their efficacy varies according to the facts of each case. Nevertheless No.1, viz., the source, whence the purchase money came, is by far the most important test for determining whether the sale standing in the name of one person, is in reality for the benefit of another. 17. In yet another case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasized that the initial burden is on the prosecution to prove the ingredients to establish the charge under Section 5(1)(e) which corresponds to Section 13(1)(e) of the new Act of 1988 and after that burden is discharged by the prosecution, onus shifts on the accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further reiterated the view expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kishanand Agnihotri Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977) 1 SCC 816 regarding the onus which is always on the person who asserts that it is a benami transaction. 18. In the light of principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if the evidence placed on records is considered, in my opinion, I have to say that the prosecution initially failed to establish that the properties were purchased and constructed by the appellant benami in the name of his wife. In this respect, the statement of prosecution witnesses are relevant. The prosecution evidence itself discloses that Mrs. In this respect, the statement of prosecution witnesses are relevant. The prosecution evidence itself discloses that Mrs. Kamala wife of the appellant was having income independently and she is also an income tax assessee. In fact P.W1, then Collector of Customs has admitted that she was not dependent on the income of the accused and further in Ex.P.2 sanction order there is no averment to the effect that she had no independent income of her own. P.W.22 Auditor and P.W.35, Income Tax Officer have testified that Smt. Kamala is an income tax assessee. 19. The Income Tax returns for the assessment year for the period 1988-89, 1989 to 1990, 1990-91 have been marked as Exs.P.47 to 50. The testimony of P.Ws.13,14,15,16 and P.W.29 clearly indicated that Mrs. Kamala was doing money lending business and she was earning income out of the said business. P.W.13 is the brother of Mrs. Kamala whose evidence indicated that the family of Kamala has been doing money lending business for years together. In cross examination of P.W.13, it is elicited that it was customary on the part of the ladies in Nattukottai Chettiar families to which community accused and his wife belonged, to engage themselves in money lending business. So it is evidentially clear that Mrs. Kamala was having independent income of her own. 20. Though Mrs. Kamala had been cited as a witness on the side of prosecution, but she has not been examined before court. After going through the evidence placed on record, I am unable to find any material to indicate that the properties in the name of Mrs. Kamala were purchased with the funds provided by the appellant. In fact, there is not even a suggestion to that effect to the witnesses examined in this regard. There must be clear evidence that the properties in the name of Kamala are in possession of the appellant or Mrs. Kamala and other are in possession of those properties on behalf of the appellant. It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that Mrs. Kamala had no source of income from which those properties could have been acquired. There is no reason forth coming from the prosecution as to why Mrs. Kamala had not been examined before court. Kamala and other are in possession of those properties on behalf of the appellant. It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that Mrs. Kamala had no source of income from which those properties could have been acquired. There is no reason forth coming from the prosecution as to why Mrs. Kamala had not been examined before court. P.W.22 Auditor and P.W.35 Income Tax Officer have spoken to the fact of Kamala being an income tax assessee and income tax and wealth tax returns have been filed by her though belatedly. She has been permitted to pay Income tax and wealth tax for three years together. In the said returns submitted by her all those properties standing in her name are shown to be her own properties. Further, P.W.30 Municipal Commissioner for Karaikudi Municipality has deposed that property tax and other taxes were paid only by Mrs. Kamala. 21. The Prosecution has not been able to bring any clinching circumstances or evidence to show that Mrs. Kamala was not doing money lending as claimed by the appellant and the funds for purchase of those properties were provided only by the appellant. In fact P.W.13's evidence which remained unchallenged indicated that it was customary for ladies of Nattu Kottai Chettiar community to engage in money lending business and wife of P.W.13 is also engaged in such business. There is nothing on record to infer that those assets were benami. In fact, P.W.48 Investigating Officer was not even aware whether Mrs. Kamala is an income tax assessee or not. He has not made an enquiry on that aspect. In fact, he has stated that certain items of properties were purchased by Mrs. Kamala. It is not stated by him that he had come to know that the appellant contributed or provided financial assistance for acquisition of those properties. P.W.50, another Investigating Officer has admitted that he recorded statement of Kamalammal who claimed that she was doing money lending business and was also an income tax assessee. But she has not been examined before the court to bring forth the true facts before the court. 22. P.W.50, another Investigating Officer has admitted that he recorded statement of Kamalammal who claimed that she was doing money lending business and was also an income tax assessee. But she has not been examined before the court to bring forth the true facts before the court. 22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions cited supra has reiterated its view that the burden to prove benami nature of assets lies on the prosecution and it is not enough merely to show that those properties standing in the name of his wife are the properties of the appellant. The court cannot decide on the basis of mere suspicion, but has to act on legal grounds established by evidence. 23. On consideration of evidence placed on record, it is clear that hardly there exists any material to connect those items of properties standing in the name of the wife of the appellant with the appellant. When P.W.48 and P.W.50 Investigating Officers in categorical terms say that they did not probe into the ownership of the properties. Their evidence also exhibited that they did not have any record to show that they belong to the appellant. Therefore, it is totally impermissible to include the said items in the lists of assets of the appellant. 24. In regard to the method adopted by the Investigating agency to arrive at the domestic and personal expenditure, it is normally based on conjecture and on information from sources which cannot be considered reliable or accurate. If the charge is of possession of assets or resources disproportionate to the known source of income, the onus of proving what according to the prosecution is the income from the known sources and what is the difference between the income on the one side and assets and expenditure on the other is on the prosecution. If the gap is quite wide and can be described as disproportionate, then the burden is on the accused to explain why there is such a gap. If the difference is substantial, then it would come within the ambit of disproportionate assets or resources and the accused will be called upon to explain the difference. 25. In Tej Ram Beri Vs. Union of India, 1973(2) SLR 291 (Delhi), it has been held that the difference of Rs.2440/- cannot be said to be disproportionate when the total income is stated to be Rs.43,060/-. 26. 25. In Tej Ram Beri Vs. Union of India, 1973(2) SLR 291 (Delhi), it has been held that the difference of Rs.2440/- cannot be said to be disproportionate when the total income is stated to be Rs.43,060/-. 26. Likewise, in the case of Nand Lal Sharma Vs. Union of India reported in 1973(2) SLR 63, it has been held that the assets could be considered disproportionate only when they are too large compared to the known sources of income. 27. The evidence placed on record shows that the appellant possessed immovable property namely Plot No. 49, Gomathy Nagar Chitlapakkam and Plot NO. 50, Gomathi Nagar, Chitlapakkam before the check period and construction of house was said to have been put up out of the loan raised by him from the Government. He is said to have acquired three properties during the check period namely (i) Plot No. 173, Rajeswari Nagar, Selaiyur Worth Rs.18,080 (ii) Plot at Chitlapakkam worth at Rs.52,491/-and (iii) Plot at Chitlapakkam worth at Rs.15,567/-shown as (d), (h) and (j) of the list of assets at the end of the check period. A shed was put up in Plot No. 173, Rajeswari Nagar, Selaiyur now mentioned as No. 82/3, Dhairiyalakshmi Street. All those properties are worth of Rs.86,138/-. 28. The gross income of the appellant admittedly even as per the prosecution is 1,43,399.90/-. P.W.3 Chief Accounts Officer has spoken to the said fact. He has deposed that during the check period, the appellant had received GPF advance and withdrawals which comes to Rs.62,750/-. During the said period he had also received arrears to the tune of Rs.15,445/- and an award of RS.52,175/-. That apart, overtime wages at Rs.1000/- per month for 97 months that is Rs.97,000/-has been paid to the appellant which has not been calculated by the Investigating agency. P.W.2 admitted in his evidence that overtime wages are not included in Ex.P.3, Salary Certificate. P.W.2's evidence also indicated that bonus was paid to the appellant and for nearly eight years it would roughly be calculated at Rs.3,000/- per year which comes to Rs.24,000/-. 29. The Investigating agency has included income from sale of 80 sovereigns of gold jewellery belonging to Mrs. Kamala and as per prosecution, it is Rs.47,664.60. P.W.15 has stated that she had sold the jewels of Kamala for a sum of RS.4 lakhs. 29. The Investigating agency has included income from sale of 80 sovereigns of gold jewellery belonging to Mrs. Kamala and as per prosecution, it is Rs.47,664.60. P.W.15 has stated that she had sold the jewels of Kamala for a sum of RS.4 lakhs. There is no clear evidence led by the prosecution as to what was the value of gold at the time of check period. P.W.15 in her cross examination had deposed that the gold jewellery was sold for a sum of Rs.4 lakhs which remain unchallenged. She was not treated as hostile and therefore, her statement in cross examination that gold jewellery was sold for a sum of Rs.4 lakhs has to be accepted. 30. As regards rent and advance collected form the tenant of the accused house at No. 49, Gomathi Nagar, Chilappakkam it is computed as Rs.55, 300/- by the prosecution which is not in consonance with the evidence placed on record. P.W.11, Mohideen Abdul Khadar, a tenant in the accused house has stated that there are two portions and rent for each portion is Rs.400/- per month and apart from the rent maintenance charge of RS.200/- was paid by him. He has further stated that he has paid an advance of Rs.700/- for each portion. He has been declared as hostile by the prosecution as according to the prosecution, only one portion was let out by the accused. But nothing is brought out in his evidence by the prosecution during cross examination to discredit his statement. 31. The law is well settled on the point that the statement of witnesses cannot be thrown out in limine, only on the ground that the witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the party- producing the witness. In case of Sat Paul Vs. Delhi Administration, reported in AIR 1976 SC 294 , while considering the evidentiary value of the hostile witness, the Apex Court has held as under: "In any criminal prosecution when the witness is cross-examined and contradicted with the leave of the court by the party calling him, his evidence cannot as a matter of law be treated as washed off the record altogether. It is for the Judge of fact to consider in each case, whereas a result of such cross-examination and contradictions, the witness stands thoroughly discredited or can still be believed in regard to a part of his testimony" 32. It is for the Judge of fact to consider in each case, whereas a result of such cross-examination and contradictions, the witness stands thoroughly discredited or can still be believed in regard to a part of his testimony" 32. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sat Paul's case (Supra) in my opinion, the statement of P.W.11, Thiru Mohideen Ahamed Kabir cannot be thrown out in limine, on the ground that he turned hostile. The fact of occupation of two portions as tenant has been asserted by him and he had denied the suggestion made by the prosecution that he was giving false evidence to favour the accused. In calculating the rent at Rs.400/- each for two portions together with maintenance charges at Rs.200/- per month and advance, the income earned by the accused by way of rent and advances comes to RS.1,49,800/- and not Rs.55,300/-as calculated by the Investigating agency. 33. In so far as rent and advance received by the accused for the first floor of the house at No.4, Ganapathy Colony, Selaiyur, the prosecution has calculated at Rs.59,000/-. P.W.3 Sudharasam a tenant has spoken to the fact that he was paying Rs.700/-per month as rent and also paid an advance of RS.2000/-. In his cross examination, it has been elicited that another tenant was occupying another portion in the same floor, paying the same rent. So, for two portions at Rs.700/-per month, together with advance for the period from December 1983 onwards it comes to RS.82,200/- and not RS.59,000/- as calculated by prosecution. 35. As regards the receipt of rent for the shed at No. 73, Dhairiyalakshmi, Rajeswari Nagar, Chitlapakkam is correctly calculated as RS.46,000/-. In so far as the house at 92, Therkutherodum Veedhi, Karaikudi is concerned, no tenants have been examined. But the Investigating Officer has admitted that a rent of Rs.500/-per month was paid by the tenant and for 51 months, the rent so received comes to Rs.25,500/-. That apart, advance of Rs.1000/- and Rs.200/-per month as maintenance charge was paid by the tenant, which comes to Rs.10,200/-. Likewise, the tenants occupying seven houses at Marugal lane, Karaikudi to which Mrs. That apart, advance of Rs.1000/- and Rs.200/-per month as maintenance charge was paid by the tenant, which comes to Rs.10,200/-. Likewise, the tenants occupying seven houses at Marugal lane, Karaikudi to which Mrs. Kamala is the owner were not examined before court, but the evidence indicates that Rs.200/-per portion was received as rent and for ten houses it comes to 96,000/- and advance of Rs.5000/-was also paid to the owner, which comes to Rs.1,01,000/-. 36. P.Ws.7, 8 and 9 are the tenants for the house and shops at Nos. 85, Mahalakshmi Nagar, which is owned by Mrs. Kamala and their evidence indicated that they paid monthly rent of Rs. 400/-, maintenance charges at Rs.150/-per month and advance of RS.1000/-. There are four houses, two big shops and ten small shops and all these shops and houses fetched rent of Rs.3,16,000/- and not Rs.1,36,040/- as calculated by the prosecution. 37. The court below has included the properties standing in the name of the wife of the appellant in spite of the fact that there is no clear and acceptable evidence that purchase of those items of properties in the name of his wife was benami. The court below not only sought the strictest possible proof from the appellant regarding the explanation given by him, but went to the extent of misplacing the onus on the accused to prove by rejecting the admissions made by the prosecution witnesses on the speculative assumption that those properties were purchased out of the funds provided by the appellant. 38. It is needless to mention that in a criminal trial, it is not at all obligatory on the accused to produce evidence in support of his defence and for the purposes of proving his version he can rely on the admissions made by the prosecution witnesses and on the documents filed by the prosecution. In such view of the matter, the court has to probe and consider the materials relied upon by the defence instead of raising an adverse inference against the accused for not producing evidence in support of his defence, because the prosecution cannot derive any strength or support from the weakness of the defence. 39. From the evidence adduced, the gross income of the accused, besides salary amounts to Rs.1,43,339.90/-, provident fund withdrawals etc comes to Rs.1,30,370/-and the accused is also eligible for overtime allowance amounting to Rs.97,000/-and bonus comes to Rs.24,000/-. 39. From the evidence adduced, the gross income of the accused, besides salary amounts to Rs.1,43,339.90/-, provident fund withdrawals etc comes to Rs.1,30,370/-and the accused is also eligible for overtime allowance amounting to Rs.97,000/-and bonus comes to Rs.24,000/-. His income from the properties by way of rent, as spoken to P.Ws 11 and 14 is Rs.1,95,800/-and all put together, his income during the check period would be Rs.5,90,509/-. His living expenses is estimated at Rs.3,65,583/-which is admitted by the prosecution as disclosed from the evidence of P.Ws. 47 and 50, the Investigating Officers. To this (a) Rs.9659/-for educational expenses of his children (b) Rs.3110/- rent paid by the accused prior to October 1986 (c) Rs.6063/- expenses paid by the accused for maintenance of scooter (d) Rs.75,000/-expenses incurred for marriage expenses of his three daughters (as per the evidence of P.W.14) (e) Rs.650/- rent paid for locker (f) Rs.3690/- Telephone charges deposit (g) RS.5,245.55/-towards connection charges, security deposit consumption charges of electricity at house No.4, Ganapathy Colony, Selaiyur (h) Rs.680/-charges paid for electrical connection, security deposit for ten houses at Marugal lands, Karaikudi (i) Rs. 4945/- for electrical connection charges, security deposit for shop-residential complex at Mahalakshmi Nagar, Chennai (j) Rs.100/- for electrical charges, security deposit for the shed at Dhairiyalakshmi Street Chennai (k) Rs.12,745.60/-towards Property Tax and licence fee in respect of all properties and houses (l) Rs.19,500/-cost of gold jewels purchased as per bills and as spoken to by P.W.46 (m) Rs.5,785/-, Income Tax paid by the wife of the accused for the years 1988-89, 89-90 and 1990-91 (n) Rs.1300/- Income Tax paid by the minor son of the accused for the years 1988-89, 89-90 and 1990-91 (o) Rs.2,30,000/- Recurring Deposit in the name of daughter of Venkateswari with M/s. Shriram Finance as spoken to by P.W.31, (p) Recurring Deposit in the name of Mahalaskhmi daughter of accused with M/s. Sriram Finance and (q) Rs.789/-water charges at Karaikudi for both buildings are added. 40. On analyzing the evidence, the total expenses incurred by the accused for the check period comes to Rs.4,79,015.00/-and the total expenses incurred by his wife G. Kamala is Rs.82,839.15/-. So the total expenditure is Rs.5,61,844.50/-. Likewise total assets of the accused at the end of check period is RS.1,85,588.00/- and total assets of G. Kamala is Rs.11,80,454.00/-. If the income and assets of the appellant is separately accounted then there is no disproportionate income. 41. So the total expenditure is Rs.5,61,844.50/-. Likewise total assets of the accused at the end of check period is RS.1,85,588.00/- and total assets of G. Kamala is Rs.11,80,454.00/-. If the income and assets of the appellant is separately accounted then there is no disproportionate income. 41. Taking into consideration the whole evidence, as discussed above, I find myself unable to accept the findings of the trial court that the assets earned by the appellant were disproportionate to the known source of income. The properties acquired by his wife out of her own income has been added to the income and assets of the appellant on the basis of certain assumption which does not stand to reason. When a finding in this regard is going to result in serious and far reaching consequences, it is required to be on sound principles of appreciation and it should be on the basis of unimpeachable evidence. The evidence placed on record does not support the case of prosecution that the properties acquired by Mrs. Kamala was benami of the appellant/accused. Under these circumstances, the findings recorded by the trial court that the assets earned by the appellant/accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income is unsustainable with the result that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the judgment and conviction and sentence passed against the appellant/accused is liable to be set aside. 42. In the result, the appeal thus succeeds. The impugned conviction and sentence passed against the appellant is accordingly set aside and the appellant stands acquitted of the charges under Section 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant/accused is on bail. His bail bonds stands cancelled. The fine in compliance to the impugned judgment, if deposited be refunded to the appellant.