JUDGMENT Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. This appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 28.2.2011 rendered by the Special Judge, Kullu in Sessions Trial No. 1 of 2003 against the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the “accused” for convenience sake), who was charged with and tried for offences under sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 13 (1) (e) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, has been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that investigation was conducted by PW-46 Hirdu Ram, Deputy Superintendent of Police and Inspector Inder Singh for the check period 1980 to 1990 and 1991 to 1999 after the registration of FIR against the accused. House of the accused was also raided. Police found ten saving bank pass books and cash certificates of J& K Bank, Kullu. According to the prosecution, total amount of Rs.1,08,367/- was found to have been deposited for the check period 1991 to 1999 and principal amount of cash certificates amounting to Rs.1,60,000/- was found to have been deposited on 5.11.1998. The details of domestic articles found in the official residence were also prepared. According to the details, value of domestic articles found to be Rs.1,27,495/- alleging that articles worth Rs.17,870/-were purchased from the years 1980 to 1990 and articles worth Rs.1,09,545/- were found to have been purchased during the check period 1991 to 1999. The police also found shares and debentures of different institutions amounting to Rs.1,92,000/- from the personal almirah of the accused. According to the prosecution case, it was found that accused purchased debentures for a sum of Rs.49,130/-for the check period 1980 to 1990 and Rs.1,42,970 for the check period 1991 to 1999. Locker No.46 in Bank of India, Branch Mandi was also searched. Police found 23 FDRs of different banks and 484.700 grams golden ornaments were also found. Record of 23 FDRs was also taken into possession. It was found that principal amount of Rs.16,20,302/- was found to have been deposited in the years 1991 to 1999. According to the prosecution, out of total 484.700 grams gold, 350 grams gold was found to have been purchased before 1980 and the same had been mentioned in the property returns of the accused as well as in the statement of wealth owned by his wife. According to the prosecution, out of total 484.700 grams gold, 350 grams gold was found to have been purchased before 1980 and the same had been mentioned in the property returns of the accused as well as in the statement of wealth owned by his wife. 134.700 grams ornaments were stated to have been purchased during the period 1991 to 1999 for a sum of Rs.66,509/-. Police also took into possession record/sale deeds of immovable property purchased by the accused at different places. It was found that during the check period 1980 to 1990, accused spent a sum Rs.3,03,622/- for the purchase of land and no immovable property was found to have been purchased between 1991 to 1999. Statement of accounts of GPF was also obtained and it was found that from the period 1980 to 1990, accused deposited a sum of Rs.1,79,320/- and a sum of Rs.5,55,291 was found to have been deposited from the years 1991 to 1999. Assets and liability returns for the period 1980 to 1999 were also taken into possession. His salary was got verified from the concerned authorities where he remained posted with effect from 1.1.1980 to 31.12.1999. His gross salary was found to be Rs.5,08,515/-. Home take salary was found to be Rs.3,05,611.05. According to the prosecution case, during the check period 1980 to 1990 and 1.1.1991 to 31.12.1999, net gross salary of the accused has been proved to be Rs.16,21,056/- and his home take salary was found to be Rs.9,58,589/- after deducting the income tax and house rent deductions etc. Similarly, according to the prosecution case, for the check period 1991 to 1999, his gross salary was accounted for Rs.14,62,260/-. His assets and liability returns for 1980 to 1999 were inspected and it was found that FDR and share interest income was found to be Rs.1,26,440/-and for the years 1991 to 1999 Rs.6,41,976/-. It was also found that during the check period 1980 to 1990, accused sold immovable property for Rs.1,26,440/- and for the year 1991 to 1999 for Rs.6,41,976/-. It was also found that during the check period 1980 to 1990, accused sold immovable property for Rs.1,68,000/-which has been further described as a plot in Panchkula which was sold for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-and plot was sold for Rs.68,000/- in Defence Colony, Patiala. According to the prosecution, during the check period 1991 to 1999, accused sold immovable property for Rs.five lakhs. According to the prosecution, during the check period 1991 to 1999, accused sold immovable property for Rs.five lakhs. Accused sold his ancestral house in Nabha District Patiala in the year 1991 for a sum of Rs.1,60,000/-. Similarly, he sold a tea garden in Palampur for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-in the year 1995 and in the year 1997, he sold a plot in Krishna Nagar, Hamirpur for Rs.90,000/-. The total income of the accused on account of house rent was assessed at Rs.25,200/-from the years 1984 to 1990 and his income from 1991 to 1999 from other sources, i.e. L.I.C. etc. was found to be Rs.1,76,122/-. The statement of wealth pertaining to his wife was also taken in possession. According to the statement of wealth, accused purchased an apple orchard on 12.6.1987, area of which has been described as 5-18 bighas for a sum of Rs.40,000/- and second apple orchard on 13.9.1988 for a sum of Rs.25,000/-. Both the apple orchards were situated in village Bradha, Tehsil and District Kullu. The assessment of the value was got done from the District Horticulture Officer. According to him, the income from the orchard for the years 1980 to 1990 has been described as Rs.27,307/- and similarly income from both the orchards has been shown as Rs.2,31,978/-for the period 1991 to 1999. In the investigation, the police on the basis of enquiry and information found the income of Rs.2,86,572/-disproportionate from his known valid sources from the years 1980 to 1990. Similarly, according to the prosecution case, police authorities found Rs.7,95,768/- disproportionate assets to the known sources of income of the accused for the years 1991 to 1999. Thereafter, after completing all the codal formalities, challan was put up in the court. 3. Prosecution examined as many as 47 witnesses in all to prove its case against the accused. Statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to him, he has been falsely implicated in the case. Learned trial court acquitted the accused on 28.2.2011. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Mr. Parmod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. 5. Mr. Ramakant Sharma has supported the judgment dated 28.2.2011 rendered by the trial court. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. 7. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Mr. Parmod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. 5. Mr. Ramakant Sharma has supported the judgment dated 28.2.2011 rendered by the trial court. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. 7. PW-1 Sher Singh, P.A. to S.E. PWD, Dharamshala was declared hostile. However, in his cross-examination, he has admitted that on 3.1.2000, PW-46 Hirdu Ram alongwith one Rajender Kumar went inside the retiring room of Chief Engineer, which was earlier retiring room of the accused before his retirement and the vigilance personnel found the files relating to shares and debentures lying in the almirah. He has denied that shares and debentures were taken into possession, but he has admitted his signatures on the recovery memo. 8. PW-2 Rajesh Tondon has deposed that accused was having locker in Bank of India. Locker was got opened by the vigilance police on 5.1.2000. FDRs of different banks and some closed packets were found in the locker, details of which were prepared and FDRs were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-2/A. The packets were opened and the same were found containing golden ornaments. List Ex.PW-2/B was prepared. One goldsmith was summoned. The golden ornaments were weighed and the weight of each golden ornament was given in the document Ex.PW-2/B. 9. PW-3 Lekh Raj is the goldsmith. According to him, golden ornaments were weighed in the bank premises. The value of the golden ornaments weighing half kilograms was done by him and according to him, its value was approximately Rs.2,25,000/-vide memo Ex.PW-2/B. He has admitted that the golden ornaments were neither tested by him on touchstone nor with any chemical. According to him, whatever he observed with naked eye, he deposed to the police. He has shown his inability to say that the ornaments were gold plated. 10. PW-4 Pushap Raj has deposed that 10-12 pass books were taken into possession and the details of the house hold articles were prepared as Ex.PW-4/A. 11. According to PW-5 Suman Soni, record regarding pay bills of accused was taken in possession by the police. 12. PW-6 T.R.N. Prabhu has deposed that he wrote confidential letter Ex.PW-6/A at the instance of vigilance police. He has admitted that account pertained to HUF and not individual record of the accused. According to PW-5 Suman Soni, record regarding pay bills of accused was taken in possession by the police. 12. PW-6 T.R.N. Prabhu has deposed that he wrote confidential letter Ex.PW-6/A at the instance of vigilance police. He has admitted that account pertained to HUF and not individual record of the accused. He has proved account opening form Ex.PW-6/B and statement of account Ex.PC-6/C. 13. PW-7 joginder Singh has deposed that during search of the almirah of bed room of the accused, ten pass books of different banks were recovered. The keys of almirah were handed over by accused to the police. Documents were taken into possession and the list of official articles and private articles was prepared and value of the articles was also disclosed by the accused. 14. PW-8 Rajender Kumar has testified that vigilance people on 3/4.1.2000 demanded keys of almirah and he opened the almirah and showed record to the vigilance police. The record pertained to debentures and shares of the accused and his family membeRs.These were taken into possession vide memos Ex.PW-1/A-1 to Ex.PW-1/A-8. 15. PW-9 Surender Sharma investigated the FIR No. 2/99 registered with the Police Station, A.C. zone, Mandi. He deposed that during search, ten pass books and one FDR was recovered from the almirah of the accused. The almirah was opened with key by the accused. Inventory of articles Ex.PW-4/A was prepared. 16. PW-10 Bihari Lal has deposed that he supplied sale deed No. 1384 dated 13.9.1988 Ex.PW-10/A and sale deed No. 827 dated 12.6.1987 Ex.PW-10/B to the police. 17. PW-11 Rajender Kaul has produced saving bank account and other documents in the name of Vijay Sikand. Cash certificate Ex.PW-11/A was also produced by him alongwith the statement of account deposit voucher. He has admitted that money in the said account was received from Delhi and the cheque was sent by one Mr. Kohli, apple commission agent, Delhi. 18. PW-12 Mehar Singh has proved the “will” dated 6.10.1982 Ex.PW-12/A. It was stated to have been executed by Smt. Goran Devi in favour of Vijay Sikand. 19. PW-13 Ami Chand has deposed that on the direction of Sh. B.D. Joshi, the-then Executive Engineer, he prepared pay bills from 1.8.1981 to 12.7.1984. He also prepared details of other claims Ex.PW-13/A to Ex.PW-13/C. 20. PW-14 Lal Singh has deposed that he remained posted as Registration Clerk in the office of Tehsidar Nadaun. 19. PW-13 Ami Chand has deposed that on the direction of Sh. B.D. Joshi, the-then Executive Engineer, he prepared pay bills from 1.8.1981 to 12.7.1984. He also prepared details of other claims Ex.PW-13/A to Ex.PW-13/C. 20. PW-14 Lal Singh has deposed that he remained posted as Registration Clerk in the office of Tehsidar Nadaun. He has proved sale deed No. 161 dated 23.4.1985 executed by Tikka Maheshwar Singh in favour of Vijay Sikand. He has proved copy thereof Ex.PW-14/A. The land which was subject matter of sale deed Ex.PW-14/A was not assessed to land revenue. 21. PW-15 Mahender Pal has deposed that on the instruction of the-then Executive Engineer, he prepared due drawn statement of the accused with effect from 1.6.1979 to 31.7.1981. 22. PW-16 R.R. Verma has deposed that on the requisition of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), he produced salary certificate of the accused, the then Executive Engineer, with effect from 1.11.1997 to 28.2.1998 Ex.PW-16/A, which was signed by D.D.O. Suresh Chand. According to him, month wise acquaintance rolls were amounting to Rs.18,306/-, Rs.4,011/-, Rs.11,170/-and Rs.6,470/-which were Ex.PW-16/B to Ex.PW-16/E. According to him, the basic pay of the accused in November, 1997 was Rs.14,600/- and total payment was made to him as Rs.34,557/-per month. 23. PW-17 Suresh Chand has deposed that on the request of police, he prepared salary statement of the accused with effect from 1.1.1997 to 28.2.1998 vide Ex.PW-16/A. PW-18 Balwant Singh has prepared record Ex.PW-16/B to Ex.PW-16/E and handed over the same to Superintendent Vigilance. According to him, gross salary of accused was Rs.2,73,220/- for the assessment year 1998-99. 24. PW-19 Rama Devi has testified that accused joined as Chief Engineer on 8.11.1997 and relinquished the charge on 11.3.1998. In the month of November, 1997, his pay scale was Rs.5900-750-7300 and on the request of vigilance section, she prepared salary statement from November, 1997 to February, 1998 vide salary slip Ex.PW-16/A. 25. PW-20 Daulat Ram has deposed that he counted the plants and determine their age vide Ex.PW-20/A. He handed over the same to the vigilance Department. The land was measured by Patwari and it was found 9-11 bighas. The plants start giving fruit at the age of six years and it gives fruit upto the age of 45 years. He admitted that survey was made in the year 1999 and report was made in the year 2000. 26. The land was measured by Patwari and it was found 9-11 bighas. The plants start giving fruit at the age of six years and it gives fruit upto the age of 45 years. He admitted that survey was made in the year 1999 and report was made in the year 2000. 26. PW-21 Mohar Singh has countersigned the report which was prepared as per the direction of PW-20 Daulat Ram. 27. PW-22 Jalam Singh has produced the assets and liability statements of the accused from the years 1981 to 1996 before the vigilance police vide Ex.PW-1/B-1 to Ex.PW-1/B-76. 28. PW-23 Yog Raj has attested the salary statement of the accused from the period 1/1998 to 2/1999 as Ex.PW-23/A-1, acquaintance roll of 4/98 Ex.PW-23/A-2 and Ex.PW-23/A-3 to Ex.PW-23/A-23. 29. PW-24 Manorma Devi has proved salary certificate Ex.PW-24/A. 30. PW-25 Lalit Kanwar has testified that on the request of the police, he prepared details of the amount drawn by the accused with effect from November, 1986 to June, 1989 and from 1.8.1992 to 30.6.1994 vide Ex.PW-25/A and Ex.PW-25/B. 31. PW-26 O.P. Bhandari has proved photocopies of assets and liability statements Ex.PW-26/A-1 to Ex.PW-26/A-7. 32. PW-27 Sudershan Singh has produced assets and liability statement Ex.PW-27/A. 33. PW-28 R.K. Sharma has deposed that vigilance department had taken into possession copy account opening form Ex.PW-28/A of account No. 8449, copy account opening form Ex.PW-28/B of account No. 8450, copy of ledger report Ex.PW-28/C, account opening form Ex.PW-28/D relating to account No. 8451, ledger sheet Ex.PW-28/E, debit cash voucher Ex.PW-28/F, account opening form of Account No. 8452 Ex.PW-28/G, ledger sheet Ex.PW-28/H, account opening form of Account No. 8125 Ex.PW-28/J, transfer voucher of entry No.15 dated 24.5.1997 of Rs.36,445/-Ex.PW-28/K, account opening form Ex.PW-28/L, account opening form Ex.PW-28/M, ledger sheet Ex.PW-28/N, transfer voucher in respect of account No. 8127 Ex. PW-28/O, account opening form relating to account No. 8796 Ex.PW-28/P, ledger sheet Ex.PW-28/Q, account opening form relating to account No.9208 Ex.PW-28/R, ledger sheet Ex.PW-28/S and statement of account relating to MDFD No. 9618 Ex.PW-28/T. According to him, account Ex.PW-28/D was in the joint names of Vijay Sikand and S.K. Sikand and Rs.90,000/- was deposited in the joint FDR account of Vijay Sikand. 34. PW-29 K.L. Mehra has deposed that transfer payment order dated 5.8.1998 was received from Branch Code 375 Palampur for Rs.51,631/- against bill collection No.1440. 34. PW-29 K.L. Mehra has deposed that transfer payment order dated 5.8.1998 was received from Branch Code 375 Palampur for Rs.51,631/- against bill collection No.1440. FDR of this amount was prepared and amount was transferred into the FDR of the accused. He has proved transfer payment order Ex.PW-29/A. Another transfer payment order No. 8/98 dated 18.4.1998 was received from P.N.B. Lift Road Branch Shimla for Rs.3,14,571/-vide bill collection No.4403 to 4406 and FDR of this amount was prepared. He has proved Ex.PW-29/B. He has admitted that the person in whose favour FDRs were prepared has not been mentioned in document Ex.PW-29/B. 35. PW-30 Ram Lal Negi has proved the information letter Ex.PW-30/A and GPF account of the accused as HPWD-3936 Ex.PW-30/B. He has also produced the deposit of GPF and withdrawal of GPF for the years 1980-1981 to 1999-2000. Accused on retirement received GPF amount of Rs.20,49,807/- vide authority No. 1807-11 dated 14.3.2000. 36. PW-31 Kashmir Singh has proved the statement of assets and liability filed by the accused Ex.PW-1/B-1 to Ex.PW-1/B-25. 37. PW-32 Dina Nath has supplied the copy of FIR No. 2/99 to the vigilance Department. 38. PW-33 K.L. Bhatia has furnished relevant information vide letters Ex.PW-33/A to Ex.PW-33/C. He has also produced statement of account in the name of Udai Sikand under guardianship of Vijay Sikand Ex.PW-33/D. According to him, on 12.12.1995, a sum of 50,000/- was deposited in fixed deposit (multi benefit) account No. 8453 in the name of Udai Sikand. He has proved the account opening form Ex.PW-33/F. He has also proved attested ledger sheet of account No.8454 in the name of S.K. Sikand Ex.PW-33/G. On 12.12.1995, an amount of Rs.80,000/-was deposited in the account of accused. Account No.8125 in the name of Udai Singh under the guardianship of vijay Sikand was opened on 7.7.1995 and later on Rs.30,000/-were transferred in this account. On 7.7.1995 again a transfer voucher from saving fund account No. 22789 in the name of S.K. Sikand was deposited in the account No. 8127 in the name of Vijay Sikand for Rs.62,000/-. On 18.12.1997, credit voucher regarding FD account No. 9618/22 in the name of Vijay Sikand and S.K. Sikand in multi benefit fixed deposit was issued. On 7.7.1995 again a transfer voucher from saving fund account No. 22789 in the name of S.K. Sikand was deposited in the account No. 8127 in the name of Vijay Sikand for Rs.62,000/-. On 18.12.1997, credit voucher regarding FD account No. 9618/22 in the name of Vijay Sikand and S.K. Sikand in multi benefit fixed deposit was issued. In MBFD account No. 9618/22, a sum of Rs.90,000/- was transferred from saving account vide Ex.PW-33/R. He has proved the ledger sheet of account No. 3489 of S.K. Sikand as Ex.PW-33/Q, photocopy of account FDR No. 8583 dated 20.2.1995 for a sum of Rs.40,000/-Ex.PW-33/S. 39. PW-34 Parveen Kumar Verma has proved copy of income tax return as Ex.PW-34/A and copy of form as Ex.PW-34/B. The wife of accused also filed her individual income tax return for the year 1998-99 Ex.PW-34/C. Accused also submitted the income tax return for the year 1999-2000 Ex.PW-34/D alongwith forms 1 to 16 Ex.PW-34/E. Accused also submitted income tax return under head HUF for the year 1998-99 Ex.PW-34/G and Vijay Sikand filed income tax return for the year 1999-2000 Ex.PW-34/F. He has deposed that in the income tax return for the year 1998-99 pertaining to HUF Ex.PW-34/A, a sum of Rs.2759/-was deducted as T.D.S. With the income tax return of Vijay Sikand for the year 1999-2000 Ex.PW-34/H, the receipt of income of orchard and cheque issued by commission agent were found attached. The agriculture income of Vijay Sikand has been shown as Rs.86,360/- in the return for the year 1998-1999. Alongwith the return, receipt issued by H.P.M.C. and commission agents were also attached. He has admitted that in document Ex.DA, which was income tax return for the year 2000-2001, Vijay Sikand has shown her income from interest and dividend to the tune of Rs.1,50,312/- and income from orchard as Rs.18,000/-. He has also proved copy of income tax return filed as HUF Ex.DA. He has also proved income tax return of accused as Ex.DC in which interest from banks and companies has been shown as Rs.54,422/-and dividend from companies as Rs.6,388/-. 40. PW-35 Gulab Singh has proved copies of pay and arrears bills of accused with effect from July 1989 to December 1990 Ex.PW-35/1 to Ex.PW-35/21. He has also proved the salary and arrears bills of accused PW-35/23 to Ex.PW-35/45 and details of bills Ex.PW-35/46. He has also proved copy of pay register Ex.PW-35/47 to Ex.PW-35/90. 40. PW-35 Gulab Singh has proved copies of pay and arrears bills of accused with effect from July 1989 to December 1990 Ex.PW-35/1 to Ex.PW-35/21. He has also proved the salary and arrears bills of accused PW-35/23 to Ex.PW-35/45 and details of bills Ex.PW-35/46. He has also proved copy of pay register Ex.PW-35/47 to Ex.PW-35/90. He has also proved income tax return for the year 1991-92 as Ex.PW-35/91. 41. PW-36 M.K. Sharma has provided photo copies of FDRs, ledger sheet, form etc. of Vijay Sikand as per letter Ex.PW-36/A. He has proved the attested copies as Ex.PW-36/B to Ex.PW-36/K except Ex.PW-36/I. He has admitted that FDRs Ex.PW-36/A to Ex.PW-36/K did not bear his signatures. 42. PW-37 Gian Thakur, District Statistical Officer, Kullu, has deposed that vide letter No.2060 dated 4.12.2000, Dy. S.P. Vigilance, Kullu applied for assessment of details of consumer expenditure of accused from the years 1980 to 1999. He applied urban non-manual consumer price index with base 1960 for the period 1980 to 1983 and with base 1984-85 for the period upto 1999 and calculated the expenditure of the accused. He has proved detailed report Ex.PW-37/A and calculation report Ex.PW-37/B. 43. PW-38 Smt. Minu has deposed that she supplied relevant record on 16.12.2000 as Ex.PW-38/A to Ex.PW-38/H and Ex.PW-38/J to the police. 44. PW-39 Sain Ram has deposed that he prepared report on assets and liability of the accused from the income tax return filed from the years 1980 to 1999. He prepared report Ex.PW-39/A. According to his report, accused has not shown his income to the tune of Rs.7,21,191/- in the income tax returns. He prepared the report on the basis of income tax return for the year 19911992 to 1999-2000. 45. PW-41 has prepared the Jamabandi for the year 1966-67, 1971-72 and 1992-93. 46. PW-43 Harji Saini has prepared the abstract of pay with effect from 1984 to April 1985. 47. PW-44 Harmesh Lal has produced the record pertaining to the income tax return of the accused for the assessment year 1997-98. 48. PW-45 Ram Lal has proved the income tax return for the year 1993-94 Ex.PW-45/A, for the year 1994-95 Ex.PW-45/B for the year 1995-96 Ex.PW-45/C, for the year 1996-97 Ex.PW-45/D and for the year 199798 Ex.PW-45/E. 49. According to PW-46 Hirdu Ram, a raid was conducted at the official residence of the accused in Jail Road, Mandi. Police found cash certificate Ex.PW-11/A worth Rs.1,75,725/-. According to PW-46 Hirdu Ram, a raid was conducted at the official residence of the accused in Jail Road, Mandi. Police found cash certificate Ex.PW-11/A worth Rs.1,75,725/-. Ten pass books of different banks were also found, which were taken into possession. Photocopies of these pass books have been proved as Ex.PW-46/C-1 to Ex.PW-46/C-1. These were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-9/A. The inventory of articles has also been proved vide Ex.PW-4/A. The retiring room of the accused was also searched on 3.1.2000. 23 bundles contained shares and debentures were recovered vide Ex.PW-8/A to Ex.PW-8/A-25. Locker No. 46 in Bank of India, Mandi Branch was also searched on 5.1.2000. It contained 23 FDRs of different banks alongwith two hand bags of cream and blue colours containing golden ornaments. After evaluation, the golden ornaments were handed over to the accused and his wife, vide receipt Ex.PW-2/B. FDRs were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-2/A. The record pertaining to assets and liability statements from 1981 to 1996 was taken from the H.P. Secretariat alongwith revenue record vide memo Ex.PW-6/D. The inquiry report Ex.PW-26/A and attested copies of assets and liability returns for the year 1980 alongwith statement of G.P.F. account was taken into possession from one Sunder Singh. The pay bills, acquaintance rolls, arrears bills etc., were also taken into possession. The orchard assessment report qua orchard situated in Phati Baradha in the name of Vijay Sikand wife of accused was got assessed from the Horticulture Officer. During investigation, revenue record consisting of a copy of “will” executed by one Bhuran Devi Ex.PW-46/G, copy of sale deed dated 7.6.1973 Ex.PW-46/H executed by one Ghanshyam Singh in favour of Smt. Bhuran Devi, copy of mutation dated 25.4.1974 of Kothi Karjan Ex.PW-46/J, copy of jamabandi for the year 1973-1974 Ex.PW-46/K, another copy of jamabandi for the year 1978-79 Ex.PW-46/L were taken into possession. Copy of jamabandi for the year 1978-79 Ex.PW-46/M, for the year 1993-94 Ex.PW-46/N and Ex.PW-/O, statement of wealth dated 31.3.1984 of Vijay Sikand wife of the accused which was issued by the A.C. of Estate Chandigarh was also taken into possession. Information from different banks were also obtained and filed. Copies of income tax return filed by the accused and HUF of his wife for the years 1991 to 1993 were also taken into possession. 50. Information from different banks were also obtained and filed. Copies of income tax return filed by the accused and HUF of his wife for the years 1991 to 1993 were also taken into possession. 50. PW-47 Amar Nath has verified 23 FDRs of different banks which were taken into possession by PW46 Hirdu Ram. He got prepared audit report Ex.PW-39/A for the period 1991 to 1999-2000 from Sh. S.R. Ranjan, S.O. Audit. According to this witness, during the computation of disproportionate assets for the years 1980 to 1990 Ex.PW-47/B, it was found that percentage of disproportionate income was found nil and for land computation of disproportionate assets for the years 1991 to 1999 the increase was found 33.78% as per detail Ex.PW-47/K. 51. PW-46 Hirdu Ram, in his cross-examination, has admitted that the sanction order dated 23.5.1999 was not placed on record. He has also admitted that earlier Inquiry Officer, Chhaju Ram had recommended for the closure of the inquiry being baseless. Similarly, according to him, Hari Ram Dy. S.P. had also found the inquiry based upon false complaint. According to him, income from disposal of immovable property during investigation for the period 1980 to 1990 was found Rs.10,99,634/-, income from orchard was found to be Rs.92,000/-and rental income was found to be Rs.25,200/-whereas expenditure for the said period was found to be Rs.12,32,119/-. He could not disclose about the detail qua expenditure of Rs.12,32,119/. He has not obtained income tax return of the accused for the years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 as well as his family. He has also admitted that income tax returns of the accused for the years 1990, 1997, 1998 and income tax returns of Vijay Sikand for the years 1997-1998 and 2000-2001 were not taken into possession. He has also admitted that the gross salary of the accused for the year 1997 came to Rs.2,66,180/-. According to him, this amount should have been added in the gross income of the accused. He has also admitted that as per return, the income of the wife of accused from interest on the FDR and shares has been shown as Rs.1,23,500/-and the income from the property in the year 1980 has been shown as Rs.5,100/-. He was not sure about the exact family members of the accused. He has admitted that his mother was receiving pension and house rent. He has shown three adult members in the family. 52. He was not sure about the exact family members of the accused. He has admitted that his mother was receiving pension and house rent. He has shown three adult members in the family. 52. PW-47 Amar Nath has admitted, in his cross-examination, that he has not calculated the savings of Ms. S.K. Sikand from the period 1980 to 1990 nor assessed the value of assets of Vijay Sikand from the years 1980 to 1990. He has admitted that in document Ex.PW-47/E gross salary for the period 1997 has been wrongly calculated as Rs.1,31,623/- and wrong figure as Rs.2,66,180/-has been mentioned. He has also admitted that in the document of salary for the year 1997 calculation has been shown to be Rs.1,31,623/- instead of Rs.2,66,180/-. He has also admitted that the salary of accused for the period 1992 in Ex.PW-47/T has been shown as Rs.1,29,205/- whereas actual salary drawn by him was Rs.1,33,381/-. He has also admitted that in the document Ex.PW-1/B-43, gross salary of the accused for the year 1991 has been mentioned as Rs.93,882/- whereas he had mentioned the same as Rs.92,262/-in document Ex.PW-47/T. He has admitted that document Ex.PW-47/T is not according to the salary drawn by the accused from the years 1991 to 1999. He has also admitted that there is difference of salary paid to the accused as shown in document Ex.PW-47/T. He has admitted that a sum of Rs.1,80,750/- has been shown as interest received by the accused during the period 1999, but in his statement Ex.PW-47/T, the same has been mentioned as Rs.80,750/-. He has also admitted that there is a difference of Rs.1,00,000/- on the lesser side which should have been on the higher side. He also admitted that income of the accused has wrongly been calculated while computation was done. According to him, actual income is more than shown in document Ex.PW-47/T. He has admitted that a sum of Rs.7,333/- received as arbitral fee by the accused has been shown in the income tax return for the year 1992-93 has not been added in the income. He has also admitted that accused has disposed of his immovable property for Rs.40,000/- which has not been shown in the computation and due to this, income of the accused has been shown lesser by Rs.40,000/-. He has also admitted that accused has disposed of his immovable property for Rs.40,000/- which has not been shown in the computation and due to this, income of the accused has been shown lesser by Rs.40,000/-. He has also admitted that in Annexure-1, Rs.16,000/-has been shown as income but the said income has not been shown in the income of the accused for the years 1971 to 1999. He has also admitted that accused had shown Rs.15,690/- as income from FDRs in his statement of assets and liabilities Ex.PW-47/T. He has also admitted that the amount of Rs.21,500/- and Rs.15,600/- should not have been added in the income tax return for the year 1992-93 Ex.PW-39/A. He has also admitted that income tax returns of Vijay Sikand HUF were not taken into possession and amount thereof has not been counted for by the earlier I.O. He has also admitted that a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- has been shown as income of the accused instead of Vijay Sikand. According to him, the income tax returns are filed separately by wife, husband and HUF. He has admitted that the orchard did not belong to accused. He has also admitted that some of the calculations made by them were wrong. He also admitted that the amount received by Vijay Sikand and HUF from LIC has been added in the income of the accused. He has also admitted that earlier I.O. calculated expenses at the rate of 30% and he calculated the same as 40% for computing income of the accused on his own. He also admitted that accused received a sum of Rs.15,000/-. He also admitted that accused received a sum of Rs.1,80,750/- as interest on FDRs in the year 1999 whereas only a sum of Rs.80,750/-was shown by him in the calculations. He has also admitted that in the document Ex.PW-1/B-43, gross salary of the accused for the year 1991 has been mentioned as Rs.93,882/-whereas he has mentioned the same as Rs.92,262/-. He has further admitted that as per the statement of income from disposal of immovable property as mentioned in the assets and liability return from 1980 to 1990, accused sold property worth Rs.1,68,000/-. He has also admitted that a sum of Rs.30,76,280/- has been shown as total income of accused for the years 1991-1999 and no details regarding income/assets of Vijay Sikand from the years 1991 to 1999 were taken into possession. He has also admitted that a sum of Rs.30,76,280/- has been shown as total income of accused for the years 1991-1999 and no details regarding income/assets of Vijay Sikand from the years 1991 to 1999 were taken into possession. According to Ex.PW-47/L, total income of the accused for the check period 1980-1990 has been shown as Rs.9,38,534/-and value of the total assets in the sum of Rs.6,51,761/-. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs.16,000/-, as shown in document Ex.PW-47/C, as cash in hand of wife was liable to be deducted. The FDRs shown at Sr. Nos. 8, 11, 12, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 and 25 were in the name of HUF. It is not the case of the prosecution that the source of amount deposited in the FDRs was invested by the accused. The total of the same came to Rs.6,60,000/-which were assets of HUF and the same were liable to be deducted from the assets of accused. The FDRs at Sr.Nos. 9, 10, 16, 17, 22 and 26 were in the name of Vijay Sikand. She was a separate entity. The total amount of these FDRs came to Rs.4,87,000/-. This amount was not liable to be calculated as assets of the accused for the check period 1991 to 1999. Vijay Sikand owned an orchard in her name. 53. According to PW-39 Sain Ram, he has prepared the report Ex.PW-39/A about the assets and liability of accused on the basis of income tax returns filed for the years 1980 to 1990. However, he has admitted in his cross-examination that the income tax return for the year 1991-92 was not on record. He has also admitted that he took the figure Rs.39,200/-for the year 1991-92 as per the final report from the police challan and not from the income tax return. He did not requisition the income tax return filed by the accused relating to missing HUF and his wife nor the same were produced before him. He has calculated the income of HUF and Vijay Sikand in the assets and liability statement while preparing Ex.PW-39/A. Ms. Vijay Sikand was the owner of orchard and was deriving income from the interest during check period. With the income tax return of Vijay Sikand for the year 1999-2000, receipt of income of orchard and cheque issued by the Commission Agent of Delhi has been attached. Vijay Sikand was the owner of orchard and was deriving income from the interest during check period. With the income tax return of Vijay Sikand for the year 1999-2000, receipt of income of orchard and cheque issued by the Commission Agent of Delhi has been attached. The agriculture income has been shown to be Rs.86,360/-. In the income tax return for the year 2000-2001, Vijay Sikand has shown income from interest and dividend to the tune of Rs.1,50,312/- and from orchard as Rs.18,000/-. PW-37 Gian Chand has not prepared the consumer expenditure reports Ex.PW-37/A and Ex.PW-37/B on the basis of schedule of expenditure. There was difference of Rs.40,000/- in the calculations made by both the Investigating Officers. The total value shown in Ex.PW-47/K for the check period 1991 to 1999 as Rs.31,50,857/- whereas in the statement Ex.PW-47/M, a sum of Rs.18,88,169/-has been shown to be as expenditure on FDRs and bank accounts. Rather, out of this amount, i.e. Rs.18,88,669/-shown as FDR and saving bank accounts, a sum of Rs.6,60,000/-was liable to be deducted, being amount of FDRs at Sr. Nos. 8, 11, 12, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 and 25, which were in the name of HUF whereas FDRs shown at Sr. Nos. 9, 10, 16, 17 and 26 were shown in the name of Vijay Sikand. By deducting amount of Rs.6,60,000/- + Rs.4,87,000/-, the value of the assets came to Rs.20,03,857/- as is evident from their statements. The Investigating Officers have committed the glaring mistakes while evaluating the income of the accused. The trial court has correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution and there is no need to interfere with the well reasoned judgment. 54. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.D. Jhingan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 1762 have held that the burden of proof lying upon the accused under section 4 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act will be satisfied if he established his case by a preponderance of probability as is done by a party in civil proceedings. It is not necessary that he should establish his case by the test of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Their Lordships have held as under: “4. It is not necessary that he should establish his case by the test of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Their Lordships have held as under: “4. The next question arising in this case is as to what is the burden of proof placed upon the accused person against whom the presumption is drawn under S. 4 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is well established that where the burden of an issue lies upon the accused, he is not required to discharge that burden by leading evidence to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. That is, of course, the test prescribed in deciding whether prosecution has discharged its onus to prove the guilt of the accused; but the same test cannot be applied to an accused person who seeks to discharge the burden placed upon him under S. 4 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is sufficient if the accused person succeeds in proving a preponderance of probability in favour of his case. It is not necessary for the accused person to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt or in default to incur a verdict of guilty. The onus of proof lying upon the accused person is to prove his case by a preponderance of probability. As soon as he succeeds in doing so, the burden is shifted to the prosecution which still has to discharge its original onus that never shifts, i.e., that of establishing on the whole case the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. It was observed by Viscount Sankey in Woolmington v. Director of Public Prosecutions, 1935 AC 462, that "no matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained''. This principle is a fundamental part of the English Common Law and the same position prevails in the Criminal Law of India. That does not mean that if the statute places the burden of proof on an accused person, he is not required to establish his plea; but the degree and character of proof which the accused is expected to furnish in support of his plea, cannot be equated with the degree and character of proof expected from the prosecution which is required to prove its case. In Rex v. Carr-Briant, 1943-1 KB 607, a somewhat similar question arose before the English Court of Appeal. In that case, the appellant was charged with the offence of corruptly making a gift or loan to a person in the employ of the War Department as an inducement to show, or as a reward for showing favour to him. The charge was laid under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1916, and in respect of such a charge, S. 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1916, had provided that a consideration shall be deemed to be given corruptly unless the contrary is proved. The question which arose before the Court was: what is the accused required to prove if he wants to claim the benefit of the exception? At the trial, the Judge had directed the jury that the onus of proving his innocence lay on the accused and that the burden of proof resting on him to negative corruption was as heavy as that ordinarily resting on the prosecution. The Court of Criminal Appeal held that this direction did not correctly represent the true position in law. It was held by the Court of Appeal that where, either by statute or at Common law, some matter is presumed against an accused person "unless the contrary is proved,'' the jury should be directed that the burden of proof on the accused is less than that required at the hands of the prosecution in proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt, and that this burden may be discharged by evidence satisfying the jury of the probability of that which the accused is called on to establish. The ratio of this case was referred to with approval by this Court in Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab, Cri. Appeal No. 53 of 1961, dated 2-3-1965: ( AIR 1966 SC 97 ). We are accordingly of the opinion that the burden of proof lying upon the accused under S. 4 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act will be satisfied if the accused person establishes his case by a preponderance of probability and it is not necessary that he should establish his case by the test of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. We are accordingly of the opinion that the burden of proof lying upon the accused under S. 4 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act will be satisfied if the accused person establishes his case by a preponderance of probability and it is not necessary that he should establish his case by the test of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, the onus on an accused person may well be compared to the onus on a party in civil proceedings, and just an in civil proceedings, the Court trying an issue makes its decision by adopting the test of probabilities, so must a criminal Court hold that the plea made by the accused is proved if a preponderance of probability is established by the evidence led by him. 5. It is against this background of principle that we must proceed to examine the contention of the appellant that the charges under S. 161, Indian Penal Code and S. 5 (2) read with S. 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act have not been proved against him. It was argued by Mr. Sethi that the circumstances found by the High Court in their totality do not establish that the appellant accepted the amount of Rs.10,000 as illegal gratification and not as a loan. It was also argued for the appellant that he had adduced sufficient evidence to show that the amount was really given to him as a loan by Ram Lal Kapoor. Having examined the findings of both the lower Courts, we are satisfied that the appellant has not proved his case by the test of preponderance of probability and the lower Courts rightly reached the conclusion that the amount was taken by the appellant not as a loan but as illegal gratification. It has been found by the High Court that Ram Lal Kapoor was not likely to lend a sum of Rs.10,000 to the appellant without getting a formal document executed. It is not suggested by the appellant that he executed a hand-note in favour of Ram Lal Kapoor. There was a suggestion that he granted a receipt for Rs.10,000 to Ram Lal Kapoor but the High Court rejected the case of the appellant on this point. It is not suggested by the appellant that he executed a hand-note in favour of Ram Lal Kapoor. There was a suggestion that he granted a receipt for Rs.10,000 to Ram Lal Kapoor but the High Court rejected the case of the appellant on this point. The High Court has observed that, in the first instance, the appellant did not make a statement with regard to the receipt as soon as the amount was recovered from him. It was only after he was taken to Mardan Singh's place that he made a belated statement that the amount was advanced to him by Ram Lal Kapoor as a loan and he had granted a receipt. Mr. Sethi contended that it was the duty of the District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police to have made a search of the whole bungalow of Ram Lal Kapoor for the alleged receipt and the failure of these two officers to make the search should be taken to prove the appellant's case regarding the grant of the alleged receipt. We do not accept the submission of the learned Counsel as correct. The High Court has remarked that the statement of the appellant was highly belated and the District authorities were justified in not making a search and ransacking the whole bungalow of Ram Lal Kapoor for the recovery of the alleged receipt. It was then contended on behalf of the appellant that no panchnama was prepared by the District Magistrate or the Senior Superintendent of Police who recovered the money from the appellant. It was also stated that no independent witness was summoned to be present at the time of the search. It was pointed out that the District Magistrate is related to Sidh Gopal and it was suggested by Mr. Sethi that the evidence of the District Magistrate, or the Senior Superintendent of Police and of Sidh Gopal should not have been accepted by the High Court as true. But all the circumstances have been taken into account by the High Court in discussing the testimony of these witnesses and ordinarily it is not permissible for the appellant to reopen conclusions of fact in this Court, especially when both the lower Courts have agreed with those conclusions which relate to the credibility of witnesses who have been believed by the trial Court which had the advantage of seeing them and hearing their evidence. It was then contended by the appellant that the High Court has taken into account the statement of Ram Lal Kapoor made in a departmental proceeding in coming to a conclusion regarding the guilt of the appellant. We do not think there is any justification for this argument. The High Court has properly held that the evidence of Ram Lal Kapoor, dated December 16, 1952 -Ex. P-11 -was not admissible and has excluded it from its consideration in discussing the guilt of the appellant. It is true that in setting out the history of the case the High Court has referred to the statement of Ram Lal Kapoor but that does not mean that the High Court has used the statement of Ram Lal Kapoor for the purpose of convicting the appellant in the present case. It was also contended by Mr. Sethi on behalf of the appellant that the statements -Exs. P-3 and P-4 - should have been excluded from consideration. It was contended that these statements were made by the appellant to the District Magistrate after the recovery of the money and were hit by the provisions of S. 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On behalf of the respondent Mr. Desai said that these statements are admissible because they were made to the District Magistrate and not to a police officer and were not during the course of investigation because the First Information Report was lodged on September 13, 1951 at 8-30 p.m. long after the statements were made. We do not consider it necessary to express any concluded opinion as to whether Exs. P-3 and P-4 are admissible but even if they are excluded from consideration there is sufficient evidence to support the conviction of the appellant on the charges under S. 161, I. P. C. and S. 5 (2) read with S. 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.” 55. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Krishna Reddy vs. State Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad, (1992) 4 SCC 45 while interpreting section 5 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 have held that initial burden of proof is on the prosecution and after that burden is discharged by the prosecution, onus shifts on accused. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Krishna Reddy vs. State Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad, (1992) 4 SCC 45 while interpreting section 5 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 have held that initial burden of proof is on the prosecution and after that burden is discharged by the prosecution, onus shifts on accused. Their Lordships have further held that it is not the mere acquisition of property that constitutes an offence under section 5 (1) (e) but it is the failure to satisfactorily account for such possession that makes the possession objectionable as offending the law. Their Lordships have held as under: “6. An analysis of Section 5(1)(e) of the Act, 1947 which corresponds to S. 13(1)(e) of the new Act of 1988 shows that (it) is not the mere acquisition of property that constitutes an offence under the provisions of the Act but it is the failure to satisfactorily account for such possession that makes the possession objectionable as offending the law. 7. To substantiate a charge under S.5(1)(e) of the Act, the prosecution must prove the following ingredients, namely, (1) the prosecution must establish that the accused is a public servant, (2) the nature and extent of the pecuniary resources or property which were found in his possession, (3) it must be proved as to what were his known sources of income, i.e. known to the prosecution, and (4) it must prove, quite objectively, that such resources or property found in possession of the accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income. Once the above ingredients are satisfactorily established, the offence of criminal misconduct under Section 5(1)(e) is complete, unless the accused is able to account for such resources or property. In other words, only after the prosecution has proved the required ingredients, the burden of satisfactorily accounting for the possession of such resources or property shifts to the accused.” 56. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta and others, 2004 Cri. L.J. 598 have held that expression “known sources of income” in section 13 does not mean sources known to accused. Their Lordships have further held that burden is cast on accused not only to offer plausible explanation as to acquisition of large wealth but also to satisfy Court that explanation is worthy of acceptance. L.J. 598 have held that expression “known sources of income” in section 13 does not mean sources known to accused. Their Lordships have further held that burden is cast on accused not only to offer plausible explanation as to acquisition of large wealth but also to satisfy Court that explanation is worthy of acceptance. Their Lordships have held as under: “5. Section 13 deals with various situations when a public servant can be said to have committed criminal misconduct. Clause (e) of sub-section (1) of the Section is pressed into service against the accused. The same is applicable when the public servant or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his offence, been in possession, for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. Clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 13 corresponds to clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (referred to as `Old Act'). But there has been drastical amendments. Under the new clause, the earlier concept of "known sources of income" has undergone a radical change. As per the explanation appended, the prosecution is relieved of the burden of investigating into "source of income" of an accused to a large extent, as it is stated in the explanation that "known sources of income" mean income received from any lawful source, the receipt of which has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules orders for the time being applicable to a public servant. The expression "known sources of income" has reference to sources known to the prosecution after through investigation of the case. It is not, and cannot be contended that "known sources of income" means sources known to the accused. The prosecution cannot, in the very nature of thins, be expected to know the affairs of an accused persons. Those will be matters "specially within the knowledge" of the accused, within the meaning of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the `Evidence Act'). 6. The phrase "known sources of income" in section 13(1)(e) {old section 5(10(e)} has clearly emphasis on the word "income". Those will be matters "specially within the knowledge" of the accused, within the meaning of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the `Evidence Act'). 6. The phrase "known sources of income" in section 13(1)(e) {old section 5(10(e)} has clearly emphasis on the word "income". It would be primary to observe that qua the public servant, the income would be what is attached to his office or post, commonly known as remuneration or salary. The term "income", it is incapable of being understood as meaning receipt having no nexus to one's labour, or expertise, or property, or investment, and having further a source which may or may not yield a regular revenue. These essential characteristics are vital in understanding the term "income". Therefore, it can be said that, though "income" is receipt in the hand of its recipient, every receipt would not partake into the character of income. Qua the public servant, whatever return he gets of his service, will be the primary item of his income. Other incomes which can conceivably are income qua the public servant, will be in the regular receipt from (a) his property, or (b) his investment. A receipt from windfall, or gains of graft, crime, or immoral secretions by persons prima facie would not be receipt from the "known sources of income" of a public servant. 7. The legislature has advisedly used the expression "satisfactorily account". The emphasis must be on the word "satisfactorily" and the legislature has, thus, deliberately cast a burden on the accused not only to offer a plausible explanation as to how he came by his large wealth, but also to satisfy the Court that his explanation was worthy of acceptance.” 57. Accordingly, in view of the discussion and analysis made hereinabove, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Bail bonds stand cancelled.