JUDGMENT The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.530 of 2009 has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of rupees twenty five thousand in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 2. Appellant Vijay Kumar Verma was working as Permanent Way Inspector Grade-II, Permanent Way Inspector Grade-I and thereafter as Chief Permanent Way Inspector in Central Railway, Nagpur during the check period of 1990-2002. His income from the known sources during the said check period was Rs.9,87,000/-. The first information report was registered against him for holding assets disproportionate to the known sources of income. During the course of investigation it was found that the appellant had assets worth Rs.10,010/- at the beginning of the check period and he had acquired assets worth Rs.13,87,912/ - during the check period. As such, his total assets at the end of the check period were Rs.13,77,902/-. His estimated expenditure during the check period was about Rs.5,41,932/-. The total income of the appellant during the check period was Rs.11,67,321/-. The total savings come to (Rs.11,67,321/- Rs.5,41,932/ -) = Rs.6,25,389/-. As stated earlier the total assets found in possession of the appellant were Rs.13,87,912/-. As such, the appellant was found in possession of the assets disproportionate to the known sources of his income to the extent of about Rs. 7,52,513/-. After completion of investigation requisite sanction was obtained from the competent authority and charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Special Judge. The Special Judge, Nagpur had framed charge and explained the same to the appellant. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. 3. During the course of recording of the evidence, the respondent/prosecution had examined in all six witnesses. P.W.1 is an officer from the office of the appellant who had given details of salary income of the appellant. P.W. 2 is Sales Manager of M/s. A.K. Gandhi from whose shop one TVS Scooty Moped was purchased allegedly in the name of wife of the appellant. P.W. 3 was working in Life Insurance Corporation of India as an Administrative Officer and he has given details of L.I.C. policies found in possession of the appellant. P.W. 2 is Sales Manager of M/s. A.K. Gandhi from whose shop one TVS Scooty Moped was purchased allegedly in the name of wife of the appellant. P.W. 3 was working in Life Insurance Corporation of India as an Administrative Officer and he has given details of L.I.C. policies found in possession of the appellant. P.W. 4 has given details of units of U.T.I. P.W. 5 is an engineer from Central Public Works Department who had done valuation of the residential house of the appellant and P.W.6 is a panch witness. The appellant had examined two defence witnesses. D.W.1 Neera Anjoo is examined to show that the Investigating Officer had valued the plot not belonging to the appellant. D.W. No.2 Vilas Deshkar has been examined to prove the actual valuation of the house property of the appellant. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded after completion of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 4. During the course of hearing of the appeal it was found that the statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not properly recorded and the appellant was not given sufficient opportunity to explain the evidence which had been adduced by the respondent before the trial Court. Specific questions with regard to various properties were not put to the appellant. 5. Learned counsel Mr. Gandhi has submitted that a serious prejudice has been caused to the appellant by not asking specific questions with regard to the L.I.C. policies, units and other properties. It is submitted that complex questions have been put to the appellant, thereby causing serious prejudice to the appellant which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Mr. Gandhi has also submitted that the appellant's income by way of arrears and other receipts from the office during the check period was not considered by the learned trial Court. However, it is seen from the record that such details were neither brought on record during the course of examination of the witnesses nor have they been brought in the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As such, I do not find any merit in this grievance of the appellant. 6. However, it is seen from the record that such details were neither brought on record during the course of examination of the witnesses nor have they been brought in the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As such, I do not find any merit in this grievance of the appellant. 6. However, I am of the clear view that the statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has not been recorded properly and sufficient opportunity was not given to the appellant to explain the incriminating circumstances against him. At the same time, the judgment is also more on law than the facts. The judgment does not briefly state as to what are the allegations against the appellant. The judgment does not describe the properties found in possession of the appellant. The judgment on facts of the case is cryptic. A large portion of the judgment is devoted to the discussion on the point of sanction and in the process the learned trial Judge has missed the material facts to be considered during the course of delivering the judgment. In the circumstances, in my view, it is just and proper that the judgment of the learned trial Court is set aside and the case is remanded back to the trial Court for hearing the case from the stage of recording statement of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, I pass the following order. i) The judgment and order of the learned trial Court dated 14th November, 2009 in Special Case No.81 of 2003 is set aside. ii) The case is remanded back to the learned trial Court for hearing the same afresh from the stage of recording of the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. iii) R & P be sent back to the learned trial Court as early as possible. iv) The appellant shall appear before the trial Court on 12th August, 2013. v) It is made clear that no witness will be allowed to be recalled either by the prosecution or by the defence. The learned trial Court will record statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure afresh and will ask him if he wanted to examine himself as a defence witness. v) It is made clear that no witness will be allowed to be recalled either by the prosecution or by the defence. The learned trial Court will record statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure afresh and will ask him if he wanted to examine himself as a defence witness. If the appellant wants to examine himself as a defence witness the learned trial Court shall give an opportunity to the appellant to examine himself as a defence witness. vi) It is further made clear that no other defence witness shall be allowed to be examined by the appellant. vii) As such, after recording of fresh statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and after recording of the evidence of the appellant on oath, if any, the learned trial Court shall deliver a fresh judgment on merits of the case on the basis of the evidence already recorded and further evidence, if any, in the form of testimony of the appellant. viii) The learned Sessions Judge shall assign the case to any Special Judge working under him and shall try to see that the case is assigned to the Judge who has lesser workload, so that the case is decided as early as possible. ix) The learned Sessions Judge shall take note of the fact that the First Information Report is of the year 2002 and the judgment is of the year 2009. The appellant is no more in service. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge shall take all necessary steps to see that his case is decided as early as possible. Criminal Appeal No.530 of 2009, accordingly, stands disposed of. In view of this, Criminal Appeal No.543 of 2010 filed by Central Bureau of Investigation does not survive and is accordingly disposed of. Ordered accordingly.