Judgment This appeal arises against the judgment of the Special Judge No. I/ XI Addl. Judge, Chennai in Spl. C.C.No.4 of 1998 dated 02.12.1999. 2. The appellants stood trial for offences under Section 13(2) read with 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the second appellant having been charged with the aid of Section 109 I.P.C, in Spl. C.C.No.4 of 1998 on the file of the learned Special Judge No. I/XI Additional Judge, Chennai. Under judgment of such court dated 02.12.1999, both appellants stand convicted and sentenced to undergo three years R.I and fine of Rs.10,000/- each i/d three months R.I. Against such conviction the present appeal stands filed. 3. The prosecution case is that the first appellant was a member of the State Legislative Assembly between 17.06.1991 and 13.05.1996 and the Minister for Tourism between 15.02.1992 and 17.05.1993. The second appellant is the wife of the first appellant. The appellants were married on 28.10.1992. The second appellant was a house surgeon at the Madras Medical College between 1992-93. She worked as a Doctor at Devaki hospital, Chennai between 06.10.1994 and 27.12.1994. She thereafter had not been employed and hence had no source of income. The first appellant who belonged to Vadakarai village of Thirunelveli district held assets of Rs.26,990/- as on 01.02.1992 and when he was the minister for Tourism, he purchased movable and immovable properties in the names of his wife and minor son and of value of Rs.43,56,343 up to 30.06.1996. The appellants known source of income during the period 01.02.1992 to 30.06.1996 was Rs.12,35,875/-. Their expenses during such period was Rs.2,78,686/-which included family expenses, repayment of loans and debts. The excess of income over expenditure was Rs.9,57,189/-. Hence the value of disproportionate assets Rs.33,72,164/-. 4. Prosecution examined 51 witnesses and marked 131 exhibits. The appellants examined 33 witnesses and marked 26 exhibits. M.P. No.1 of 2012 had been moved in the present appeal towards receipt of further evidence. Such application having been allowed on 25.09.2012, the documents sought to be marked shall stand marked as Defence exhibits D27, 28 and 29. 5. Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for appellants submitted that they stood falsely charged and faced trial as the investigating agency proceeded with the sole object of prosecuting them. Several heads of income stood excluded and some stood reduced. 5. Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for appellants submitted that they stood falsely charged and faced trial as the investigating agency proceeded with the sole object of prosecuting them. Several heads of income stood excluded and some stood reduced. The first appellant who had entered upon marriage as a minister received several gifts both at the marriage which was held on 28.10.1992 as also at the reception held on 04.11.1992. The value of such gifts was Rs.12,87,825/-. Exs.D8 and D9 were video cassettes which would establish the same. The appellants received gifts from 1827 persons and though they wished to examine several of them the court below permitted them to examine only a limited number. Such persons had spoken to the gifts given by them but the court below had brushed aside such evidence on the ground that there was no record thereof, loosing sight of the fact that the marriage was of the year 1992 whereas the witnesses had been examined in the year 2006. The order of the Income tax Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Chennai dated 30.08.2000, reflected that as against gifts of Rs.12,87,825/- received, the Assessing officer had sought confirmation to the extent of Rs.5,61,164/- and within 10 days. 40 of the donors had confirmed having extended gifts to the tune of Rs.1,80,573/-. After such period, 73 other donors had confirmed gifts to the extent of Rs.3,19,059/-. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had cancelled the assessment for the block period 1987-88 to 1997-98 and remitted the matter to the assessing officer. No enquiries have been made in respect of gifts to the extent of Rs.7,26,671/-. Interest income of Rs.50,000/- was also not included. Ex.D.28 informed of allowances received by the first appellant as a member of the legislative assembly between 1991-96 in a sum of Rs.67,437/-. The same had not been included in the income of the first appellant. Ex.D.29 informed that between 21.02.1992 and 13.05.1996 the appellant had received petrol allowance in a sum of Rs.3,14,559/-. This too had not been taken into account. Exs. D1 to D3 reflected huge agricultural income and though P.W.37 was a party to the issuance thereof, he had deposed falsely against the appellants. Proper appreciation of the evidence P.W.38- VAO and D.W.6 – Agricultural Expert, would show that huge agricultural income of Rs.18,00,000/- to Rs.19,00,000/- stood excluded. P.W.18 had placed the family expenses between 01.01.1991 to 30.06.1996 at Rs.86,971/-. D1 to D3 reflected huge agricultural income and though P.W.37 was a party to the issuance thereof, he had deposed falsely against the appellants. Proper appreciation of the evidence P.W.38- VAO and D.W.6 – Agricultural Expert, would show that huge agricultural income of Rs.18,00,000/- to Rs.19,00,000/- stood excluded. P.W.18 had placed the family expenses between 01.01.1991 to 30.06.1996 at Rs.86,971/-. P.W.18 has not been treated hostile by the prosecution. P.W.50- Investigating Officer had taken the same to be Rs.4000/- per month and at a total sum of Rs.86,971/-. Properties included as item Nos.14, 15 and 16 in statement No II –(assets) assessed at the end of check period, stand wrongly included. This accounted for a sum of Rs.54,422/-. P.W.47– Engineer P.W.D had admitted to effecting valuation of the appellants house at Vadakarai on 09.05.1997, including therein the cost of plastering, though the same had not been done on such date. Against Ex.P.126 reflecting his valuation of such house at Rs.13,59,451/- P.W.47 admitted that the same could be at Rs.9,00,000/-. P.W.14 – Secretary of the Legislative Assembly had admitted to informing only the salary of first appellant in Ex.P.18 since no other particulars were sought by the Investigating officer. P.W.37 – Village Administrative Officer has admitted to noting the monthly agricultural income of the first appellant at Rs.30,000/- and of the Revenue Inspector also endorsing the same but has stated that the same was examined and stood corrected by the Tahsildar. P.W.37 also admits of having noted a reduced extent of land as holding of the second appellant in Ex.P.58. 6. Learned counsel submitted that the trial court had accepted the valuation of the house at Vadakarai village placed at Rs.10,50,000/- by P.W.27- Manager of a Bank, though P.W.47- Engineer had admitted that the same could be Rs.9,00,000/-. P.W.47 had informed that on 20.05.1997, on the date of his examination of house at Kottivakkam, the same was incomplete and stood only at the plinth level. The lower court had accepted the value thereof at Rs.50,000/- as against valuation of Rs.5,22,384/- informed in Ex. P.128. Therefore, huge deductions had to be made in respect of valuation placed by the prosecution upon the house properties. The lower court had accepted the value thereof at Rs.50,000/- as against valuation of Rs.5,22,384/- informed in Ex. P.128. Therefore, huge deductions had to be made in respect of valuation placed by the prosecution upon the house properties. Though there was evidence of a gift of Rs.3,25,000/- given by D.W.3, father in law to first appellant in the form of videograph, the court below without viewing the same, has held such witness to be incapable of making such gift. The court below had also not taken into consideration the income through lease holdings evidenced by Exs.D1 and 2. Learned Senior counsel submitted that as a Doctor the second appellant had professional earnings in a sum of Rs.2,54,000/- and this wrongly had been not accepted by the trial court. Learned Senior counsel would close his submissions by stating that all that was required of the defence was to afford satisfactory explanation and such requirement stood more than met. 7. Mr. Pratap Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl side) would fairly submit that items 14,15 and 16 stand wrongly included in Annexure – II – list of assets and accordingly a sum of Rs.50,000/- is to be deducted. Similarly, he concedes that a sum of Rs.50,000/- in interest income stands not taken into account. He however, would submit that the court below is right in accepting the evidence of P.W.27 and placing the costs of construction of house at Vadakarai at Rs.10,50,000/-. Learned counsel would submit that the court below is right in rejecting tax returns regards earnings of the second appellant as also gifts afforded by D.W.3 in sums of Rs.3,25,000/- to first appellant at the time of his marriage and Rs.5,00,000/- to second appellant at the time of construction of house during the year 1995-1996 informing that the income tax in the first instance and gift tax in the second were remitted, after registration of case against the first accused. Learned counsel submitted that there was no proof regards gifts received both at the marriage of the accused as also in the connected reception and that the court below had rejected the evidence of D.W.6 the agricultural expert put up by the defence on sound reasoning. He would submit that the trial court rightly had taken note of the fact that appellants falsely had claimed of properties purchased at very low value, yielding huge profits. He would submit that the trial court rightly had taken note of the fact that appellants falsely had claimed of properties purchased at very low value, yielding huge profits. He submits that the court below is right in drawing the conclusion that the first appellant had obtained a certificate informing his agricultural income per month at Rs.30,000/-towards obtaining allotment of a house in the higher income group from the Housing Board. He would inform as well founded the decision of the lower court rejecting Exs.D.5 and 6, lease deeds as also acceptance of Rs.4000/-per month as the monthly family expense of the accused. Informing that the prosecution duly has proved its case he would pray that the appeal be dismissed. 8. We find quite well considered the decisions of the trial court in rejecting the contentions of the appellant on the professional income of second appellant and the gifts of Rs.5,00,000/-allegedly made by D.W.5, father of A1 to A2, his daughter in law, on the reasoning that tax returns in respect thereof came to be submitted after the registration of the case. The non acceptance of Exs.D5 and 6 lease deed also is well founded. A perusal of such documents reveal that the period of lease stands expired or was nearing expiry at the beginning of the check period. We, however, find much wrong in the prosecution case. As admitted, property value of Rs.50,000/- wrongly stands included and interest income of Rs.15,000/-stands excluded. P.W.47 admits to the value of the house at Vadakarai being Rs.9,00,000/-as against the value thereof placed at Rs.13,59,451/- in Ex.P126. As against an expert, P.W.18 informing that the family expenses of the accused during the check period would be Rs.86,971/-, P.W.50 Investigating Officer has taken the same to be a sum of Rs.2,12,000/-. Placing aside the evidence of D.W.6, an agricultural expert which informs of large volumes of agricultural income, we find that even going by the evidence of P.Ws.37 and 38 the agricultural income of the accused would be close to Rs.9,50,000/- as against Rs.5,25,740/-shown by the prosecution. In arriving at an estimation of Rs.9,50,000/-, we have taken note of the admissions of P.Ws.37 and 38 Village Administrative Officers. P.W.37 has admitted to the second appellant wife holding 4.92 acres which according to him would yield an annual income of Rs.67,040/-. In arriving at an estimation of Rs.9,50,000/-, we have taken note of the admissions of P.Ws.37 and 38 Village Administrative Officers. P.W.37 has admitted to the second appellant wife holding 4.92 acres which according to him would yield an annual income of Rs.67,040/-. P.W.38 has admitted to the minor son of the accused holding two extents of land viz., 1.31 acres with 130 coconut trees and 1.11 acres with 110 coconut trees respectively. P.W.38 has also spoken to the price of each coconut being Rs.3/-. Annual yield of 100 coconuts per tree is admitted. The joint holding of 316 coconut trees and 35 mango trees by first appellant and his brother in particular survey fields is admitted. P.W.38 further admits that each mango tree would yield income of Rs.2,000/- per month. The approximation of income of the first appellant therefrom would be Rs.81,400/- while that of the minor son would be Rs.72,000/- per annum. The check period is 4 years 3 months. A rough estimation of A1, A2 and their minor son on the basis of the evidence of P.Ws.37 and 38 would bring the agricultural earnings over a period of 4 years 3 months to Rs.9,50,000/-Even gift of household articles (Exs.P33 and 34) of value of Rs.1,38,729/-given to A2 at the time of marriage as spoken to by D.W.3 and D.W.10 wrongly stand included, as expenditure of the accused. Allowances received by A1 as a MLA/Minister to the tune of Rs.3,81,996/-stand not included in the income of the accused. An excess value of Rs.4,59,451/-stands placed on the house at Vadakarai while an excess value of Rs.4,72,384/-stands placed on the house at Kottivakkam. A1 as a Minister at the time of his marriage would have been the receipient of very many gifts. The accused have informed of receiving gifts in a sum of Rs.12,87,825/- at the marriage and connected reception. The Income Tax Assessing Officer of the accused has caused enquiries in respect of gifts to the tune of Rs.7,26,671/- and the Income Tax Authorities have had confirmation of gifts to the tune of Rs.3,19,609/- (Ex.A37). The proceedings upon reopening of assessment have been set aside by the Income Tax Appellate Authority and the Assessing Authority was required to consider the matter afresh under orders of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 30.08.2000. The proceedings upon reopening of assessment have been set aside by the Income Tax Appellate Authority and the Assessing Authority was required to consider the matter afresh under orders of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 30.08.2000. While the defence informs that the proceedings of the Income Tax Authority have not reached conclusion, the prosecution is unable to assert otherwise. We therefore cannot choose to ignore the contention of the appellants of their having received gifts to the tune of Rs.12,87,825/-. Similarly, the claim of the appellants of D.W.3, father of A2 having given a sum of Rs.3,25,000/-to A1 at the time of marriage, cannot easily be ignored. The evidence of P.Ws.37 and 38 reveal that D.W.3 independently holds agricultural lands. The gift referred to has been spoken to by D.W.3 father of A2, D.W.5 father of A1 as also D.W.4 President of the Jamath. That the prosecution has failed to examine such President after citing him as a list witness would have to be read against it. 9. Thus we find that the prosecution has faltered at every step. When to this we add that the explanatory statements tendered by the accused have not been produced before Court, agricultural holdings of A2 as also income there from have been given a go-by, substantial allowances received by A1 stands ignored, the extent of land holdings of the accused has been assessed at a lower level as admitted by P.Ws.37 and 38 and the Investigating Officer has no qualms over substituting his assessment of the family expenditure of the accused for that of an expert P.W.18, this Court finds it just to conclude that the prosecution has failed to prove its case and the appellant/accused would be entitled to the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed. The judgment of conviction passed by the learned Special Judge No.I/XI Additional Judge, Chennai in Spl.C.C.No.4 of 1998, dated 02.12.1999 and the consequential sentence passed upon the appellants shall stand set aside. The bail bonds of the appellants stand cancelled.