JUDGMENT : The conviction and sentence dated 03.09.2007 passed in Special Case No.3 of 2004 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Court, Nagercoil are being challenged in the present Criminal Appeal. 2. The appellant herein, a public servant, working as upgraded Assistant in Kanyakumari District Employment Exchange Office, was found asset disproportionate to the known source of income, during the check period from 01.04.1995 to 31.03.1999. Hence, he was charged for the offences under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act [hereinafter referred to as 'P.C. Act']. 3. The Trial Court after considering the evidence let in by the prosecution as well as the defence, found him guilty that he was in possession of asset worth Rs.4,43,715/- disproportionate to his known source of income and convicted him to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. 4. The appellant herein challenges the Trial Court's Judgment on the ground that the prosecution has erred in arriving at the income, expenditure and value of the assets as far as the following items are concerned and the Trial Court despite proper explanation vide Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.9, had not properly appreciated the same. 1. 37 Sovereigns of Gold Jewels gifted to Appellant's wife by her parents at the time of her marriage on 13.11.1989 sold during check period for Rs.1,18,000/- 2. Income of Rs.90,000/- derived from 25 cents of wet land in R.S.No.6/11 of Kadiyapattinam Village gifted to Appellant's wife Tmt.T.Kanmani by her father. 3. Actual value of House constructed in the name of Appellant in Door No.7-62-H1 (New No.7/217) Nigesh Nivas in R.S.686/6A of Lekshmipuram Village and in R.S.No.13/3, Manavalakurichi Village during 1998 is Rs.3,50,000/- only. Whereas the prosecution has over estimated as Rs.5,56,307.00 4. Family consumption expenditure of Appellant as Rs.1,22,574.00 during the check period (ie) from 1.4.1995 to 31.3.1999 based on Ex.P.22 is baseless. [The appellant family was leading simple life. His expenditure to maintain the family during the check period was only Rs.75,000/-]. 5. Expenditure incurred for the house warming ceremony of the Appellant house on 10.09.1998 was estimated excessively as Rs.10,000/- whereas he spent only Rs.1,500/-. 6. The expenditure for maintaining motor cycle TN-74-9317 based on the evidence of P.W.28 is arrived at Rs.12,721.00, which is based on presumption and assumption. 5. 5. Expenditure incurred for the house warming ceremony of the Appellant house on 10.09.1998 was estimated excessively as Rs.10,000/- whereas he spent only Rs.1,500/-. 6. The expenditure for maintaining motor cycle TN-74-9317 based on the evidence of P.W.28 is arrived at Rs.12,721.00, which is based on presumption and assumption. 5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant had submitted his explanation for the source of wealth, vide his letter dated 08.05.2003, which is marked as Ex.P.39. He has also marked documents Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.9, to show he has savings by subscribing chit, availed loan from GPF on various occasions and also availed loan from LIC to construct the house, which is shown as item No.11 in second schedule. The value of the property assessed by P.W.11 is excessive and baseless. The value of the building is worth only Rs.3,50,000/-. The Trial Court has not taken note of the sale of 37 sovereigns jewels for Rs.1,18,000/- and the agricultural income of Rs.90,000/- derived from item 2 in second schedule. The deposition of D.W.1 not taken into account, had the Trial Court properly considered these aspects, there would not be any disproportion in the wealth held by the appellant. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that the appellant working as Assistant in the Department of Employment and Training before the check period (01.04.1995) had no property worth mentioning. During the check period, his total income was only Rs.4,21,839/- including loans. After spending for his family and himself at the most, he could have saved maximum Rs.2,24,090/- whereas during the check period he has constructed a house at the cost of Rs.5,56,307.00. Besides he had also acquired properties like Television, Fridge, TVS Suzuki Motor Cycle, House site, household articles and furniture’s total worth Rs.6,67,807.00. The above facts are proved through prosecution witnesses (P.W.1 to P.W.34) and documents (Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.39). During trial, the appellant was given opportunity to prove his source of income. He produced a letter, marked as Ex.P.39. The appellant also mounted the witness box and examined as D.W.1. He marked 9 documents. But none of the documents discloses sufficient source. The Trial Court has considered all the points raised in the appeal and negatived the explanation for want of material evidence. Therefore, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor prays dismissal of the appeal. 7. The appellant also mounted the witness box and examined as D.W.1. He marked 9 documents. But none of the documents discloses sufficient source. The Trial Court has considered all the points raised in the appeal and negatived the explanation for want of material evidence. Therefore, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor prays dismissal of the appeal. 7. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police. 8. The contentious issue regarding the claim of the appellant are: (i) Whether the 37 sovereigns of gold jewels shown as asset held before the check period and end of the check period was really sold and encashed by the appellant? (ii) Whether the value of the house constructed in the name of the appellant at Lekshmipuram Village is worth Rs.5,56,307/- or less than that? (iii) Whether the family expenses as calculated by the prosecution is excessive? (iv) Whether the expenditure of Rs.10,000/- for the house warming ceremony as alleged by the prosecution is excessive or not? 9. The appellant when called to explain his source, had given a letter dated 08.05.2003, wherein he has subscribed two chits each for Rs.50,000/- in Siva Chit Funds and two chits each for Rs.40,000/- in the then Thiruvancour Credit Chit Fund. He has also mentioned about housing loan from LIC for Rs 1,50,000/-. Agricultural income and gift from his father-in-law of Rs.40,000/- and personal savings of Rs.75,000/-. While deposing before the Court to explain the source of his income to acquire the assets mentioned, he has marked three receipts issued by Sri Sivaraja Chit Fund. They are issued to Kanmani, who is the wife of the appellant. These three receipts, which were marked as Ex.D.1 series, indicate that Kanmani has paid Rs.1,217/50 on 06.02.1997 towards the 35th instalment, Rs.2,390/- on 22.12.1996 towards 33rd and 34th instalments and Rs.1,230/- on 10.03.1997 for 36th instalment. Except these three receipts, no other document is produced by the appellant to prove that the amounts shown in the receipts were really paid to the person concerned and these payment were made from known source of legal income. No proof to link that these receipts are for the two chits for Rs.50,000/- each and Rs.40,000/- each as mentioned by the appellant in his explanation letter Ex.P.39. The Court could see that Ex.D.1 series stand unconnected to the defence explanation. 10. No proof to link that these receipts are for the two chits for Rs.50,000/- each and Rs.40,000/- each as mentioned by the appellant in his explanation letter Ex.P.39. The Court could see that Ex.D.1 series stand unconnected to the defence explanation. 10. In respect of the sale proceeds of the alleged sale of 37 sovereigns of gold jewels for Rs 1,18,000/-, the appellant has not taken any steps to prove this plea except making a passing reference in his explanation, Ex P- 39. He has specifically deposed that he sold 37 sovereigns of jewels to one Sunderrajan during June, 1997-98. But these transactions are admittedly not accounted. No corroboration to substantiate this plea by examining Sunderrajan, the buyer or any other witnesses, who know about the transaction. Though, it is argued that the loans availed from provident fund not accounted for, in the cross examination of the appellant, he admits that all the loans he availed, are properly accounted by the prosecution in the schedule. Admittedly, no evidence contrary to the evidence of the prosecution in respect of the valuation of the building or income or expenditure placed before the Court by the appellant. 11. In the said circumstances, this Court finds no error in the calculation placed before the Court. The Trial Court judgment does not warrant any interference in the appeal and hence the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court in Special C.C. No.3 of 2004, dated 03.09.2007, is confirmed. 12. In respect of sentence, this Court holds that the period of imprisonment requires modification. Instead of 5 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act, 1988, taking into consideration the delay in disposal of the appeal and the age of the appellant, the appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment. 13. The trial court is directed to secure the appellant and commit him to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence. The period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant/accused shall be set off. Bail bond if any executed by him, shall stand cancelled. 14. This Criminal Appeal is partly allowed on the above terms.