GOPAL PRASAD, J.:–Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 05.01.2012/10.01.2012 passed by Sri Om Prakash Sinha II, the learned Additional Sessions Judge XI-cum-Authorized Officer, Special Court-I, Vigilance, Patna in Special Case No. 28/2007 (Confiscation Case No. 02/2010) by which it has been held that the movable, immovable and cash worth Rs.61,00,829/- has been found to be disproportionate assets acquired by the appellant no. 1, namely, Bhola Prasad by criminal misconduct defined under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. The fact of the case is that the appellant no. 1 Bhola Prasad, the then Divisional Forest Officer, Kaimur, Bhabua was arrested for taking bribe worth Rs.45,000/- on 24.02.2007 for which the Vigilance Case instituted bearing Vigilance P.S. Case No. 20/2007 dated 24.02.2007 under Sections 7/13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and during course of investigation movable and immovable property worth Rs.91,78,219.80/- has been recovered and seized from the possession of said Bhola Prasad. Thereafter a declaration has been made under Section 5 of the Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009 by the State of Bihar to the effect that the State Government is of the opinion that there is, prima facie, sufficient materials of the commission of criminal misconduct by the then Divisional Forest Officer, Kaimur, Bhabua who has accumulated properties disproportionate to his known sources of income by resorting to corrupt means. Thereafter a petition under Section 13(1) of the Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009 with affidavit has been filed by the Special P.P., Sri Raj Nandan Prasad authorized for making application before the Authorized Officer for confiscation alleging therein that Bhola Prasad joined service in 1982 and in between April, 1982 to January, 2007 acquired and amassed movable and immovable property in his name as well as in the name of his family members worth Rs.85,84,516/- but his income from the known source is Rs.29,44,650/- and as per the settled principle he can only save during the aforesaid period worth Rs.9,81,550/- hence, it has been alleged that the property worth Rs.76,02,966/- which is disproportionate to his known source of income required to be confiscated. Thereafter notices have been issued to the appellant no. Thereafter notices have been issued to the appellant no. 1 Bhola Prasad under Sections 14 of the Special Courts Act and under Section 14(2) of the Special Courts Act to the other family members like Maya Prasad, (the wife of appellant no. 1), Sri Brahmadeo Prasad, Sri Hare Krishna Prasad, Sri Nripendra Narayan, Archana Kumari (the daughter of appellant no. 1) and Vishwajeet Ranjan (the son of appellant no. 1). It is proper to mention that the cash recovered from the possession of appellant no. 1 including cash worth Rs.15,90,400/-, car valued at Rs.1,41,500/-, the land purchased mentioned in the name of Bhola Prasad & others worth Rs.44,23,000/-, investment in L.I.C. Rs.5,46,649/-, other investment in bank etc. Rs.14,97,448/- and assessed cost of house hold goods Rs.3,85,520/- and hence, total comes to Rs.85,84,516/-. The notice issued under Section 14(1) & (2) of the Special Courts Act to Bhola Prasad and his family members in whose name property stands. It has been asserted by the appellant no. 1 Bhola Prasad that he has also other source of income like agriculture, money back policy from the L.I.C., bank interest maturity amount from N.S.C. and loan etc. and he has no concern with the assets in the name of his wife and other family members who have also independent source of income. He has asserted that his father-in-law was also a substantial person of his village and owner of more than twenty Bighas of agricultural land and so the appellant no. 1 got good amount in cash from his father-in-law at the time of his marriage as well as got 30 Bhar gold ornaments, 10 Bhar of silver ornaments. The further assertion is that the price assessed of the household goods is without any basis. A claim has also been made that the appellant no. 1 is agriculturist and his father was the income tax payee since 2005-06 and land worth Rs.3,00,000/- has been purchased in the name of Vishwajeet Ranjan by his father from the agriculture income. It has also been asserted that his wife has also earning from brickkiln business, knitting, sewing and dairy business and filing of the income tax return since financial years 2001-2002. It has also been asserted that his wife has also earning from brickkiln business, knitting, sewing and dairy business and filing of the income tax return since financial years 2001-2002. He further submits that he purchased a Maruti car after taking loan of Rs.2,00,000/- and remaining amount paid by him from his salary and has invested Rs.4,74,593/- by purchasing LIC policy out of which he got money back policy to the tune of Rs.1,05,000/- and claims that cash amount worth Rs.15,90,480/- was recovered from the rented house of Hanuman Nagar, Patna and was not in his exclusive possession and the cash belongs to Smt. Maya Prasad. Further Hare Krishna Prasad his brother-in-law is maintaining his saving account and Kishan Vikash Patra worth Rs.1,05,000/- is in the name of Late Mithilesh Prasad his younger brother doing business of brickkiln. He has further stated that during the check period he got Rs.29,44,650/- from his salary and he has managed to save 50% to the tune of Rs.14,72,325/- out of his salary and got Rs.1,05,000/- from money back policy of L.I.C. and got interest from banks and P.P.F. account to the tune of Rs.1,80,149.55/-. He has sold his old Ambassador Car for Rs.41,000/- and his income from National Saving Certificate is Rs.1,09,645/- and got income from agricultural land approximately Rs.5,00,000/- from the land of his native village and income of Rs.45,000/- from agriculture at Biharsharif. So his total approximate income comes to Rs.26,53,120/- and his total saving during the check period comes to Rs.12,43,078/- and from the different bank account it is apparent that he had Rs.3,79,945/- and major portion of saving amounts of Rs.8,63,124 was given to his wife for house-hold affairs during the check period. 4. Maya Prasad, wife of Bhola Prasad appeared and filed a show cause stating therein that her father was in service posted in the Block who died in the year 1991 had more than 20 Bighas of agricultural land and she has two brothers, namely, Hare Krishna Prasad and Sri Nripendra Narayan. Hare Krishna Prasad was appointed on the post of Karamchari at the time of death of his father and the appellant no. 1 got 30 Bhar gold ornaments, 10 Bhar silver ornaments and Rs.25,000/- cash at the time of her marriage. She has acquired professional in knitting, sewing, embroidery and has also started dairy business to earn Rs.25,000/- per year. Hare Krishna Prasad was appointed on the post of Karamchari at the time of death of his father and the appellant no. 1 got 30 Bhar gold ornaments, 10 Bhar silver ornaments and Rs.25,000/- cash at the time of her marriage. She has acquired professional in knitting, sewing, embroidery and has also started dairy business to earn Rs.25,000/- per year. She started the business of brickkiln in partnership with the help of Late Mithilesh Prasad, the younger brother of her husband and after death of Mithilesh Prasad, the appellant no. 1 gave up the business of brickkiln. She further submits that she made an agreement for sale of plots at Phulwarisharif and Agamkuan in different date to the tune of Rs.16,90,000/-. She further claimed to have taken loan from different persons to the tune of Rs.9,65,000/- and sold her golden and silver ornaments for Rs.88,275/-. She got Rs.1,50,000/- from the account no. 9957 Bank of India, Patratu and account no. 6074 of State Bank of India, Lafanga as her share on the death of her father and got Rs.84,000/- from Nripendra Narain and saved Rs.2,00,000/- from monthly expenditure given by the appellant no. 1 for her maintenance and she earned Rs.15,50,000/- from her business of dairy, knitting etc. She earned Rs.2,97,3,000/- and has purchased immovable asset in the name of Bishwajeet Ranjan for consideration of Rs.2,10,000/-. She has invested Rs.30,35,000/- in immovable asset during check period. She has further stated that she decided to marry her daughter and in that event decided to sell her plots and so made an agreement for sale with Sri Prem Sagar Singh and several others for different plots and taken to the tune of Rs.50,24,575/- and her total investment comes to Rs. 18.30,625/- out of which cash money of Rs.15,90,480/- have been recovered from her residence which was seized by the Vigilance. 5. Hare Krishna Prasad and Nripendra Narain brother-in-law of Bhola Prasad have also appeared and filed their show cause stating therein that from account nos. 9957 and 6047 it is clear that Rs.6,12,793.35/- were deposited through cheques issued on behalf of the government as his father Late Brahamdeo Prasad was V.L.W. and the account standing joint name of his brother in law and his younger brother and younger sister and the amount in account no. 9957 and 6047 it is clear that Rs.6,12,793.35/- were deposited through cheques issued on behalf of the government as his father Late Brahamdeo Prasad was V.L.W. and the account standing joint name of his brother in law and his younger brother and younger sister and the amount in account no. 2844 on 28.01.1993 got balance amount of Rs.4640/- and not Rs.94,560/- further stating that he got financial help from his elder brother, agriculture and tuition and apart from these he also got Rs.1,50,000/- as his share after the death of his father and he produced fixed deposit for Rs.5,000/- withdrawn and purchased different documents of Sahara India with each having valued at Rs.10,000/- with total valuation of Rs.60,000/-of the maturity value Rs.1,20,000/-. 6. The trial court took into consideration the show cause as well as Annexur-1 photo copy of agreement deed with one Binod Kumar Yadav, deed of partnership for running brickkiln business Annexure 1/1, Annexure 2 series income tax return for financial year 2001-2002 to 2005-2006, Annexure – 3 series concerning taking of loan, Annexure – 4 the sale receipts of ornaments, Annexure 5 and 6 series the photo copies of pass books, Annexure – 7 series the schedule of income from agricultural land, deed of agreement for sale Annexure – 8 series and Annexure -9 and held that no registration certificate or any required paper issued by the government has been filed to corroborate the fact about running of brickkiln or earning by sewing, embroidery and knitting by Maya Prasad and no cheat of paper to corroborate these facts and except oral submissions no corroborative document has been filed to justify separate earning from these activities. 7. The trial court, however, took into consideration the photo copy of tax return Annexure 2 series filed by appellant no. 2 showing her separate earning since financial year 2001 – 2002 to 2005-2006. From perusal of income tax return it appears that the earning in the financial year 2001 – 2002 has been shown as Rs.81,8000/- in financial year 2002-2003 Rs.82,000/- and in financial year 2005-2006 of Rs.1,37,900/-. From perusal of photo copies of different sale deeds, it appears that the plots mentioned in serial nos. 6 and 8 of immovable assets for Rs.4,50,000/- and Rs.4,80,000/- has been purchased on 22.02.2000 whereas plot number mentioned in serial no. 7 in her name for Rs.3,50,000/- has been purchased on 23.02.2000. 8. From perusal of photo copies of different sale deeds, it appears that the plots mentioned in serial nos. 6 and 8 of immovable assets for Rs.4,50,000/- and Rs.4,80,000/- has been purchased on 22.02.2000 whereas plot number mentioned in serial no. 7 in her name for Rs.3,50,000/- has been purchased on 23.02.2000. 8. Hence, the property worth about Rs.13,00,000/- purchased in the year 2000 itself whereas no document filed to show that any return filed till 2000 by Maya Prasad, appellant no. 2 and there is no explanation for the same and finally property worth Rs.44,00,000/- and odd shown to have purchased but the return filed shows to the extent of only Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.4,00,000/- and the cash worth Rs.15,00,000/- and odd recovered from her house. 9. Hence, the trial court has rejected the claim of Maya Prasad, appellant no. 2, wife of Bhola Prasad appellant no. 1 regarding her earning by the business of brickkiln, embroidery, sewing and dairy and rejected the explanation of the purchase of land in the name of Maya Prasad and Vishwajeet Ranjan described in paragraph 5 of the application for confiscation with total assets of immovable property worth Rs.44,00,000/- and odd and movable deposits of Rs.1,05,429/- as well as the cash recovered from her house worth Rs.15,90,400/- holding that the property was disproportionate to the known source of income of Bhola Prasad. 10. However, taking into consideration the respective submissions of the parties and the explanation by the appellants, it is apparent that the trial court accepted the plea of Bhola Prasad regarding savings of his 50% salary on ground that he got 15 Bighas of agriculture land by which he got agricultural produce. 11. However, the trial court has rightly rejected the explanation of Maya Prasad, wife of Bhola Prasad as those explanations were devoid of any merit. The explanation is that Maya Prasad was income tax payee but the tax has only been assessed for financial year 2001-2002 showing earning of Rs.81,800/- and during the financial year 2002-03 earning of Rs.82,000/- and in financial year 2005-06 earning of Rs.1,37,900/- has been shown whereas the sale deeds in her name till the year 2000 itself is about Rs.15,00,000/- when no income tax return has been shown till 2000 and earning for subsequent period is only for few year to the tune of about Rs.3,00,000/- only. Earning from the brickkiln has been shown but no any document of the running of brickkiln has been brought on record even the license of brickkiln has not been brought nor there is any paper with regard to her business of embroidery, sewing, dairy and other business and though it has been stated that she got money by unregistered document of contract for sale but those unregistered document are only the Sada stamp unregistered worth lacks of rupees but neither these documents were seized during the raid nor produced at the time, hence, it is apparent that these documents are manufactured and afterthought and so that trial court rightly rejected the plea of Maya Prasad to get the money by the agreement to sell or by taking loan but the paper filed in this regard do not inspire confidence rather shows an absurdity and hence, the trial court has rightly rejected the explanation of Maya Prasad. Taking into consideration the explanation and the material on record, I do not find any merit to interfere with the order passed by the Special Court and hence, taking into consideration the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant in the light of material available on the record and further taking into consideration the judgment of the Special Judge having considered in detail and no new point has been raised before this Court to consider, I do not find any merit to interfere with the order impugned and hence, the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. ?