JUDGMENT : 1. These two appeals are directed against the Judgment of the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai passed in C.C.No.5 of 2006, dated 18.10.2007. The appellant in Crl.A(MD)No.557 of 2007 is one Jayaraman (A.1), former Joint Commissioner, Central Exicse Department, a public servant. The appellants in Crl.A(MD)No.556 of 2007 are Waheeda Jayaraman (A.2), wife of Jayaraman and P.Velu (A.3), father of Jayaraman. 2. The charge against Jayaraman (A.1) is that, he being a public servant worked in different capacities in the Central Excise Department, had acquired assets and pecuniary resources disproportionate to his known source of income. During the check period between 01.01.1989 and 31.03.2004, the disproportionate assets and pecuniary resources of property which stands in the name of the public servant namely, Jayaraman, his wife Waheeda Jayaraman and his father Velu, exceeds to an extent of Rs.45,62,206/-. 3. Therefore, Jayaraman (A.1) was convicted for offence under Section 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act, 1988 punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. The other two accused, who are appellants in Crl.A(MD)No.556 of 2007 were convicted for offence under Section 109 IPC read with 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act for abetting A.1, they both were sentenced to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each in default to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the above appeals are preferred. 4. Prosecution case in brief : (i) Based on reliable information received by the office of Superintendent of Police, SPE/CBI/ACB/Chennai, a First Information Report (Ex.P.114) was registered on 26.04.2004 against the appellants for offence under Section 120-B read with 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act suspecting conspiracy to acquire and possess disproportionate assets beyond the known source of income of the public servant. (ii) According to the First Information Report, Jayaraman (A.1) joined as Lower Division Clerk in the Department of Central Excise in the month of July, 1971. He became Inspector of Central Excise in the year 1973. Later promoted as Superintendent of Central Excise in the year 1985. Became Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise in the year 1995 and promoted further as Joint Commissioner of Central Excise during the month of January, 2004. He became Inspector of Central Excise in the year 1973. Later promoted as Superintendent of Central Excise in the year 1985. Became Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise in the year 1995 and promoted further as Joint Commissioner of Central Excise during the month of January, 2004. He as a public servant and income tax assessee, had been periodically filing his income tax returns. His wife Waheeda Jayaraman (A.2) till 2002 was a house wife. Thereafter, took employment in a private school as a teacher and also engaged in giving tuition. She is also an income tax assessee and had filed income tax returns periodically. (iii) P. Velu (A.3), the father of Jayaraman a retired Police Constance, is a pensioner since 1986. His family has ancestral dry agricultural land measuring 8.8 acres in Veeramadai Village, Thirukovilur Taluk, Vilupuram District. He had purchased a house of Veeramadai Village in the year 1976 and 6.60 acres of dry land in the year 1997. Both the ancestral agricultural lands and the land purchased by Velu are dry lands without any substantial yield. He is living separately at Vilupuram. Both Waheeda Jayaraman (A.2) and P.Velu (A.3) though have no substantial income to acquire assets knowing fully well that A.1 have no other source of income except his salaried income, had lent their names to acquire wealth from the unknown source of income acquired by A.1. Thus, they have conspired with A.1 and in pursuant to the conspiracy, started acquiring movable and immovablae assets since 01.01.1989 in their name. (iv). The check period taken between 01.01.1989 and 31.03.2004, the information gathered indicates: (i). The total income of the accused persons during the check period - Rs.35,78,350/- (ii). The expenditure during the check period - Rs.15,04,854/- (iii). The savings during the check period - Rs.20,73,496/- (iv). The assets acquired during the check period - Rs.61,78,928/- Thus, as against savings less than Rs.21 lakhs, Jayaraman, his wife and father put together, had possessed wealth worth about Rs.62 lakhs. (v). Based on the above information, CBI has conducted investigation. After affording opportunity to the accused to explain the source for acquiring the wealth mentioned in the annexures, filed final report before the Special Court for CBI Cases, Madurai on 31.05.2006 against Jayaraman (A.1), Waheeda Jayaraman (A.2) and P.Velu (A.3). (v). Based on the above information, CBI has conducted investigation. After affording opportunity to the accused to explain the source for acquiring the wealth mentioned in the annexures, filed final report before the Special Court for CBI Cases, Madurai on 31.05.2006 against Jayaraman (A.1), Waheeda Jayaraman (A.2) and P.Velu (A.3). Two other persons namely, E.Sekar and K.Prabavathi were shown as accused but not sent for trial under Column No.2 of the final report. (vi). The final report concluded that the disproportionate assets held by A.1 is as below: (1). Income of Shri V. Jayaraman, Smt. Waheeda Jayaraman (A-2) and Shri P.Velu (A-3) during the check period as per Statement 'C = Rs.34,47,901 (2). Expenditure during the check period as per Statement 'D' = Rs.23,49,577 (3). Likely savings during the check period (1-2) = Rs.10,98,324 (4). Assets at the end of the check period (as per Statement B) = Rs.60,02,694 (5). Assets at the beginnning of the check period (as per statement A) = Rs. 3,42,164 (6). Assets acquired during the check period (4-5) = Rs.56,60,530 Disproportionate Assets (6-3) = Rs.45,62,206 (vii). The prosecution to prove the case against the accused persons, examined 55 witnesses. 141 exhibits were marked on in support of the prosecution. Whereas in defence, besides the accused persons, 4 others were examined as witnesses and 30 exhibits were marked. (viii). The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence and considering the defence explanation for the assets held by them has arrived at the value of the assets possessed by the public servant and his family members as below: (a). Income of the three accused during the check period as given in Statement C : Rs.36,17,901/- (b). Expenditure during the check period as given in Statement D : Rs.23,49,577/- (c). Likely savings during the check period : Rs.12,68,324/- (d). Assets at the end of the check period as given in Statement B : Rs.58,76,341/- (e). Assets at the beginning of the check period as given in Statement A : Rs. 3,42,164/- (f). Assets acquired during the check period : Rs.55,34,177/- (g). Disporportionate Assets { f - c } : Rs.42,65,853/- Percentage of disproportion : 117.91% Having found that the percentage of disproportionate assets is around 117.91%, the Trial Court has held them guilty and sentenced them as stated above. 5. 3,42,164/- (f). Assets acquired during the check period : Rs.55,34,177/- (g). Disporportionate Assets { f - c } : Rs.42,65,853/- Percentage of disproportion : 117.91% Having found that the percentage of disproportionate assets is around 117.91%, the Trial Court has held them guilty and sentenced them as stated above. 5. Contentions of the learned counsels appearing for the appellants/A.1 to A.3: (i) The appellant in Crl.A(MD)No.557 of 2007/A.1 is being a public servant jointed as Lower Division Clerk in the Central Excise Department in the year 1971 and gradually got promoted stage by stage and reached the post of Joint Commissioner. He has a clean track record of service without any blemish. While doing so, the investigation officer by violating all the mandatory requirement for investigating in a disproportionate asset case, had filed final report against the public servant, his wife and father, even without taking the correct income of his wife and father. (ii). The learned senior counsel would submit that the wife of A.1 was working as a lecturer and also taking private tuition thereby getting adequate income. Her father was a retired Central Government officer and she had received enough sridhana from her parental home. The income of her wife derived through tuition and reflected in the income tax return were not property taken it consideration by the Court below. (iii). Further it is contended by the learned senior counsel that the father of the public servant, a retired Police Constable apart from his pension, was holding agricultural land to an extent of 12 acres. His agricultural income was grossly under-estimated by the prosecution despite the evidence let in by the defence through D.W.4 and D.W.5 to show A.3, the father of the public servant had agricultural income over and above, the income estimated by the prosecution. (iv). It is contended by the learned senior counsel that GPF loan availed by A.1 has not been given due consideration under the head of income. Presuming that the loan availed for Ayurvedic treatment, had spent towards treatment in toto, the substantial income derived through GPF loan has been deleted. (v). It is also contended that the value of the properties held by A.1 and his family members were also over-estimated contrary to the title deeds. Contending that under Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, no oral evidence can be let in contra to the documentary evidence. (v). It is also contended that the value of the properties held by A.1 and his family members were also over-estimated contrary to the title deeds. Contending that under Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, no oral evidence can be let in contra to the documentary evidence. The learned senior counsel would submit that the value as shown in the sale deed should have been taken as the value of the properties, more particularly, items 1 to 3 shown in the statement under asset at the end of the check period are grossly over estimated. (vi). Contending that the prosecution had collected the sale deeds and the statement of the vendor as well as the statement of bank accounts, which reflect the payment of sale consideration through banking transaction, inspite of that the Trial Court has taken the value shown by the prosecution, the learned senior counsel would submit that the Trial Court should not have accepted the oral evidence of the vendor, who claims that he has received over and above the money what mentioned as a sale consideration in the sale deed. (vii). As far as motor car (Maruti Zen) for which, the prosecution has added Rs.2,50,000/- under the caption of assets held at the end of the check period, it is submitted that the prosecution has not produced any document to show that the said car stands in the name of any of the accused. Similarly, the motor car (Maruti 800), the prosecution has claimed that A.3 has purchased it for Rs.1,00,000/-, no evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to show the car stands in the name of A.3. (viii). Regarding the value of the ornaments and jewels, it is contended by the learned senior counsel that the value of the ornaments were not assessed by a certified assessor and no evidence has been let in by the prosecution to prove that ornaments and jewels were purchased by the accused during the check period. (ix). While considering the assessment regarding the expenditure, the learned senior counsel would contend that under the guidelines and instructions of CBI Manual, if the expenditures are not unverifiable, 1/3 of the total income has to be deducted towards expenditure. In this case, besides deducting 1/3 for household expenses, the prosecution has also in addition, valued the household items held by the accused to a tune of Rs.6,84,880/-. In this case, besides deducting 1/3 for household expenses, the prosecution has also in addition, valued the household items held by the accused to a tune of Rs.6,84,880/-. Thus, pointing out the difference in the assessment of the assets held in the hands of the accused, which according to the defence is about Rs.37,00,000/- and pointing out certain omissions in the income and under-estimation of agriculture income of A.3 and tuition income of A.2 which according to the defence, run to nearly Rs.47,00,000/-. The learned senior counsel would contend that there is no disproportionate of assets held by the accused persons. (x). A detail of statements regarding the income, expenditure and value of the assets held by the end of the check period has been submitted along with the written argument by the learned counsels representing the accused. (xi). Besides the above factual point, the defence has also contended that the order of sanction bristles with infirmity and non-application of mind. The evidence of approver who was granted pardon by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate instead of Special Judge for P.C. Act Cases, has to be eschewed as illegal. The entries and facts recorded in the Office Notes marked as Ex.P.79, which are contemporaneous documents maintained in the normal course of the administration ought to have prevailed upon all other documents to ascertain the source of income and value of the properties purchased by the public servant after due intimation to his employer. (xii). It is also contended that the investigation has been done contrary to the guidelines mentioned in Ex.P.141 and therefore, the Trial Court ought to have considered the lapse in the prosecution case and should have acquitted the accused persons. Since, the Trial Court has miserably failed to consider the lapses in the prosecution evidence and also failed to properly appreciate the defence version for their source of income and value of the assets held by them, the Judgment is liable to be set aside. 6. Contention of the learned Special Public Prosecutor in defence of the Trial Court Judgment: Refuting the contentions raised by the learned counsels appearing for the accused/appellants, the learned Special Public Prosecutor representing CBI would submit that the prosecution has assessed the value of the assets held by the accused persons properly. 6. Contention of the learned Special Public Prosecutor in defence of the Trial Court Judgment: Refuting the contentions raised by the learned counsels appearing for the accused/appellants, the learned Special Public Prosecutor representing CBI would submit that the prosecution has assessed the value of the assets held by the accused persons properly. Only after getting opinion from the valuers who are competent to assess the value of the property comparing the same with the submissions of the vendors, the value of the immovable properties held by the appellants were reasonably fixed. The evidence relied by the prosecution has been duly tested by the Court. As far as the value of immovable items Nos.1 to 3 in the statement of assets are concerned, though the documents mentioned very lesser value, the vendors of those properties spelt out the actual consideration received. Further, even Registration Department has not accepted the value as shown in the document and has imposed penalty and collected additional stamp duty. 7. In this regard, learned Special Public Prosecutor representing CBI would submit that Section 91 of Indian Evidence Act has no application to the facts and circumstances of this case. The approvers who are the vendors have deposed the actual sale consideration received by them. Even assuming that oral evidence could not be adduced contradicting the content of the written document, this restriction will not apply to State, which is not a party to the document. More so, if there is material which could establish the content of the document is incorrect, there is no bar either under the Indian Evidence Act or any other law. 8. The learned Special Public Prosecutor representing CBI would further contend that the value of item No.1 under asset of property held at the end of the check period, which is the house at Door No.Q-52, Kovaipudur, Coimbatore, which stands in the name of the public servant, Jeyaraman is assessed at the rate of Rs.12,15,010/- and the value of item No.2 namely, house at V-61, Kovaipudur, Coimbatore, which stands in the name of A.2, Waheeda Jayaraman and A.3 Velu jointly assessed as Rs.21,46,000/-. This value ought to be taken without any reduction. The Court below has rightly considered the evidence available and gave justifiable reason why the value of these assets and other assets as shown by the prosecution has to be accepted. 9. This value ought to be taken without any reduction. The Court below has rightly considered the evidence available and gave justifiable reason why the value of these assets and other assets as shown by the prosecution has to be accepted. 9. Therefore, the learned Special Public Prosecutor representing CBI would submit that while the prosecution has proved beyond doubt, the total value of the property held by these appellants far and above the known source of income, even if some minor variations found in the valuation statement, it will not go to the root of the case to disbelieve A.1 had amassed wealth beyond his known source of income. 10. The learned Special Public Prosecutor representing CBI concedes there is some error in the way of framing the charge of abetment against A.2 and A.3. However, would contend that the accused have fully understood the charge against them and they have contested the charge by letting in evidence besides examining themselves as defence witnesses. Hence, no prejudice is caused in them due to the error found in the way of the second charge framed. 11. Regarding the assets found in possession of the appellants at the end of the check period, the learned Special Public Prosecutor representing CBI would submit that the value of the household articles found in possession of the appellants during the house search, which form part of the inventory are assessed based on the declaration given by the public servant himself. While so, there is no error in including those items in the list of assets held by the accused at the end of check period and also valuing the same as per the declaration of the accused. The earmarking 1/3rd of the known source of income towards domestic expenditure should be in addition to the household articles held by the accused. The guidelines mentioned in Ex.P.141 does not indicate when the expenditure is fixed at the rate of 1/3 of the known source of income, the value of the household articles should be excluded. Even according to Ex.P.141, only expenditure towards water charges and electricity charges can be excluded if it is unverifiable. 12. The guidelines mentioned in Ex.P.141 does not indicate when the expenditure is fixed at the rate of 1/3 of the known source of income, the value of the household articles should be excluded. Even according to Ex.P.141, only expenditure towards water charges and electricity charges can be excluded if it is unverifiable. 12. Regarding the income under GPF loan, the learned Special Public Prosecutor representing CBI would submit that the public servant has given a reason to avail GPF loan, but he has not produced any document to prove that the loan availed was not utilized for the said purpose. He would submit that the public servant has availed GPF loan for a specific expenditure, namely, Ayurvedic treatment. Therefore, it is to be presumed that he has spent that money for Ayurvedic treatment. Hence, what he has availed as loan has already been spent for treatment and the department has also accepted his utilisation certificate. While so, when this money is not available with the accused, the prosecution has rightly set off the income against expenditure. 13. The learned Special Public Prosecutor representing CBI would sum up his argument and say that the Trial Court has gone into the details of the statement provided by the prosecution and the explanation given by the accused. The under-valuation of the properties in the sale deed, blotted claim of agricultural income of A.3 through D.W.3 and D.W.4 and the income tax return filed by A.2 towards her tuition income, were all properly taken into consideration. Even after giving liberal concession for the unproved claim of the appellants, the ratio of disproportionality in respect of the assets held by the public servant and the active participation of A.2 and A.3 in amassing wealth was over and above 100%. The Trial Court has appreciated the evidence property. After giving due consideration of the explanation, had arrived at a conclusion that the percentage of disproportionate asset held by the public servant in his name and in the name of his wife and father, is around 117.91%. 14. Even if the explanation given by the accused persons regarding some of the income and value of the assets at the appellant stage presumed to be correct and accepted, it no way indicates that the disproportionality is not less than 100%. 15. 14. Even if the explanation given by the accused persons regarding some of the income and value of the assets at the appellant stage presumed to be correct and accepted, it no way indicates that the disproportionality is not less than 100%. 15. The Judgments relied by the defence, at the most give a liberal interpretation of the valuation of the disproportionality only to an extent of 15% and not more than that. When the prosecution in this case has clearly proved and the same accepted by the Trial Court that the disproportionality exceeds 100%, the Judgments referred by the defence is of no unveil. 16. Hence, learned Special Public Prosecutor representing CBI would submit that the appeals have to be dismissed for want of merits and the Trial Court Judgment has to be confirmed. 17. The point involved in these appeals for consideration is that whether the Court below has properly appreciated the value of the assets and the source of income to arrive at the conclusion that the public servant had acquired assets disproportionate to his source of income and his wife and father abetted him to acquire those assets? 18. The basic facts which uncontroverted in this case can be captulised as below: (i). The first accused V.Jayaraman is a public servant. He joined as Lower Division Clerk in the Department of Central Excise on 20.08.1971. He married Waheeda (A.2) on 20.03.1986. His father Velu (A.3) served as Head Constable and retired in the year 1986. Between 01.01.1989 and 29.04.2004 has been taken up as check period by the prosecution. (ii) During this period, A.1 was Superintendent, Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and Joint Commissioner at various places. The investigation has brought to light that at the commencement of check period, the value of the total assets held by the public servant family was worth Rs.3,42,164/- which includes immovable assets, ornaments, jewelleries and motor cycle. During the check period, apart from two house properties at Coimbatore, one house at Villlupuram, land at Coimbatore, additional ornaments, jewelleries, Maruti Zen and Maruti 800, one TVS Scooty and other movables such as wooden furniture’s, sofa, electrical goods such as TVs, DVD, Cell-phone, Air-conditioner, wet grinder, fridge, cameras, utensils and clothes were found in possession of the appellants during the search of the premises and it has been valued as per the declaration made by the accused Jayaraman. (iii) In addition to the movables and immovables, investments in the bank by way of FD and shares in several companies were also found. The total value of these assets including investments and valuable securities has been assessed by the prosecution to be valued at Rs.58,76,341/-. 19. The Trial Court has held that the total asset held in the hands of the accused persons is 117.91% in excess of the known source of income. The same is now under challenge on various grounds. Each of those grounds are dealt separately as below: Variation in the check period : 20. Regarding the check period, the learned counsels appearing for the appellants/accused would submit that fixing 15 long years as check period and expecting the accused persons to explain the source of each and every item of assets held by them starting from small gift articles worth Rs.100/- to immovable property worth few lakhs which have been acquired during the course of very long period of time is improper. Further, the learned counsels would point out that while the charge sheet has mentioned the check period as between 01.01.1989 to 31.03.2004, the Trial Court has extended the check period from 01.01.1989 to 29.04.2004 so as to include certain new properties, which was acquired during that period. This has highly prejudiced the defence. Further, the learned counsels would also point out that there is no mentioning of check period in the charge. 21. In this regard, this Court finds that the Trial Court has fixed the end of check period as 29.04.2004, one month beyond check period mentioned in the final report. This one month difference has not caused any advantage to the prosecution or disadvantage to the accused. Whatever be the check period, it is the duty of the public servant to explain the source for acquiring the assets which are in his possession. Though the charges do not specify the check period, the annexures given along with the charges carry the check period. Hence, this cannot be a ground to hold the trial bad in law. 22. While the check period is for 15 years, it is true that it may be impossible for the public servant to explain the period on which he purchased the clothing material, wearing apparels and household articles. Hence, this cannot be a ground to hold the trial bad in law. 22. While the check period is for 15 years, it is true that it may be impossible for the public servant to explain the period on which he purchased the clothing material, wearing apparels and household articles. However, the value of those clothing items enumerated in statement under assets at the end of check period does not exceed Rs.1,50,000/-. Whereas the other verifiable expenditures spent for household articles like electronic goods and appliances, the value is assessable and so far as this case is concerned, for most of the items, the value has been declared by the accused himself or it is supported by invoices. 23. By extending the end date of check period by one month or fixing the check period for a period of 15 years from 01.01.1989 to 29.04.2004, when the major investments are made on immovables, valuable securities and motor vehicles, the public servant is bound to explain the source for purchase of each and every item of the property held in his possession. Therefore, there is no arguable point in contending that there is prejudice caused by fixing the check period of 15 years or extending the check period by one month in the charge, contrary to the final report. Defective charge : 24. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Crl.A(MD)No.556 of 2007 filed by A.2 and A.3 that the charge framed against them for the offence under Section 109 IPC read with 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act is not framed properly. The charge as framed is not in consonance with Section 211 Cr.P.C. and 212 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel would submit that the second charge reads as if A.1 abetted A.2 and A.3 for acquiring properties to the extent of Rs.45,62,206/-. Whereas it should be the other way round. 25. The spirit of framing charge in a criminal case is to make the accused persons to understand for what act (omission or commission), he is prosecuted. The offence committed by him has to be specified by name and if the offence is not specified by name, the actual act must be stated with definition of the offence. The provision of law against which the offence is said to have been committed shall also be mentioned in the charge. The offence committed by him has to be specified by name and if the offence is not specified by name, the actual act must be stated with definition of the offence. The provision of law against which the offence is said to have been committed shall also be mentioned in the charge. Further, the time and place of alleged offence and the person against whom the said offence committed, has to be mentioned in the charge. There are the necessary ingredients of Sections 211 Cr.P.C. and 212 Cr.P.C. 26. In the light of the above, one has to test the charges framed and impugned in this appeal. The second charge as framed by the Trial Court is as below: “Secondly, that you (A1) abetted you (A2 & A3) being wife and father of you (A1) acquiring properties to the extent of Rs.45,62,206/- during the check period in all your A1 to A3 names and you (A2 & A3) abetted you (A1) to effect purchases in your name knowing fully well that such purchases could not be from and out of the your (A2 & A3) income or from and out of the known sources of income of you (A1). Thereby you A1, A2 & A3 committed an offence punishable u/s 109 IPC R/w 13(2) R/w 13(1)(3) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988”. The above charge is no doubt error onerous. However, if one search whether it amounts to failure of justice, it is not because Section 215 Cr.P.C. specifically saves error or omission in the framing of charge from nullifying a prosecution, provided, the charge does not mislead or cause failure of justice. 27. The appellants in Crl.A(MD)No.556 of 2007, who are A.2 and A.3 against whom the charges were framed for offence under Section 109 IPC read with 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, had fully understood the charge against them. They have contested the case not only by cross-examining the witnesses regarding the charge against them for abetment, they have also filed documents and mounted the witness box to be examined as defence witness. In the said circumstances, at no stretch of imagination, one could say that the error in couching the charge of abetment had caused prejudice or injustice to the appellants. Sanction: 28. Mr. S.P. Roy, Under Secretary to the Government in Department of Revenue, Government of India, been examined as P.W.52 by the prosecution. In the said circumstances, at no stretch of imagination, one could say that the error in couching the charge of abetment had caused prejudice or injustice to the appellants. Sanction: 28. Mr. S.P. Roy, Under Secretary to the Government in Department of Revenue, Government of India, been examined as P.W.52 by the prosecution. In his deposition he has stated that he has examined the case file and submitted the papers along with the file to the competent authority for taking a decision. The competent authority to remove the accused being the President of India, he has forwarded the papers to him. On receiving the communication from the office of the President, he has conveyed the sanction to prosecute V.Jayaraman, Joint Commissioner [Technical], Central Excise [Customs], Trichy, vide Ex.P.107. 29. It is contended by the learned senior counsel appearing for A.1/Appellant in Crl.A(MD)No.557 of 2007 that there is no document to show that in the sanction order, the competent authority namely the President of India has perused all the documents and had accorded sanction after due application of his mind and on satisfaction about the case against the accused. 30. In support of his submission, the learned senior counsel would referred the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal reported in (2014)14 Supreme Court Cases 295, wherein in paragraphs 15, 16 and 17, it has been held as below: “15. Consideration of the material implies application of mind. Therefore, the order of sanction must ex facie disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered the evidence and other material placed before it. In every individual case, the prosecution has to establish and satisfy the court by leading evidence that those facts were placed before the sanctioning authority and the authority had applied its mind on the same. If the sanction order on its face indicates that all relevant material i.e. FIR, disclosure statements, recovery memos, draft charge sheet and other materials on record were placed before the sanctioning authority and if it is further discernible from the recital of the sanction order that the sanctioning authority perused all the material, an inference may be drawn that the sanction had been granted in accordance with law. This becomes necessary in case the court is to examine the validity of the order of sanction inter-alia on the ground that the order suffers from the vice of total non-application of mind.(Vide: Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka v. R.; Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab, Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of A.P., State v. Krishanchand Khushalchand Jagtiani, State of Punjab v. Mohd. Iqbal Bhatti, Satyavir Singh Rathi, ACP v. State, AIR 2011 SC 1748 ; and State of Maharshtra v. Mahesh G.Jain). 16. In view of the above, the legal propositions can be summarised as under: 16.1. The prosecution must send the entire relevant record to the sanctioning authority including the FIR, disclosure statements, statements of witnesses, recovery memos, draft charge sheet and all other relevant material. The record so sent should also contain the material/document, if any, which may tilt the balance in favour of the accused and on the basis of which, the competent authority may refuse sanction. 16.2. The authority itself has to do complete and conscious scrutiny of the whole record so produced by the prosecution independently applying its mind and taking into consideration all the relevant facts before grant of sanction while discharging its duty to give or withhold the sanction. 16.3. The power to grant sanction is to be exercised strictly keeping in mind the public interest and the protection available to the accused against whom the sanction is sought. 16.4. The order of sanction should make it evident that the authority had been aware of all relevant facts/materials and had applied its mind to all the relevant material. 16.5. In every individual case, the prosecution has to establish and satisfy the court by leading evidence that the entire relevant facts had been placed before the sanctioning authority and the authority had applied its mind on the same and that the sanction had been granted in accordance with law. 17. In view of the above, we do not find force in the submissions advanced by Shri Vishwanathan, learned ASG that the competent authority can delegate its power to some other officer or authority, or the Hon’ble Minister could grant sanction even on the basis of the report of the SP. The ratio of the judgment relied upon for this purpose, in A.Sanjeevi Naidu etc. The ratio of the judgment relied upon for this purpose, in A.Sanjeevi Naidu etc. v. State of Madras, is not applicable as in the case of grant of sanction, the statutory authority has to apply its mind and take a decision whether to grant sanction or not”. 31. In this regard, it is pertinent to read the sanction marked as Ex.P.107 and the deposition of P.W.52, who has conveyed the sanction order of the President of India. In Ex.P.107, sanction order, the entire facts involved in this case has been captulised in nut-shell. In the penultimate paragraph, it is recorded that the President of India, who is the competent authority to remove A.1 having applied his mind, had come to the conclusion that there exists prima facie case against Jayaraman to prosecute under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act. The documents referred before arriving at such conclusion are also listed out in the sanction order. P.W.52 as Under Secretary, Ministry of Finance, has forwarded the sanction order passed by the President exercising the power and authority conferred on him under the Government of India Authentication [Orders and Other Instruments] Rules, 1958 and Allocation of Business Rules, has notified under Article 77 of the Constitution of India. 32. There is no dispute to the fact that Jayaraman (A.1) can be removed only by the order of the President. Ex.P.107 is the sanction order passed by the President, communicated through P.W.52, the Under Secretary to the Government of India. The sanction order itself specifically indicates that P.W.52 conveys the sanction order to the authorities as per the authentication and authority conferred on him as per Business Rules and Government of India Authentication Rules framed under Article 77 of the Indian Constitution. Article 77 of the Constitution reads as below: “77. Conduct of business of the Government of India.- (1)All executive action of the Government of India shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the President. (2) Orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of the President shall be authenticated in such manner as may be specified in rules to be made by the President, and the validity of an order or instrument which is so authenticated shall not be called in question on the ground that it is not an order or instrument made or executed by the President. (3) The President shall make rules for the more convenient transaction of the business of the Government of India, and for the allocation among Ministers of the said business”. In this case it is evident from the documentary evidence Ex.P.107 and the testimony of P.W.52 that the relevant papers were forwarded to the President of India and he has accorded the sanction to prosecute the accused, which in turn has been conveyed by the Under Secretary, who is authenticated to do so as per the Rules framed under Article 77 of the Indian Constitution. 33. In the said circumstances, this Court finds no error in the sanction. In the Judgment cited above, there is no indication either from the sanction order or from the testimony of the witness, whether the sanction emanated from the office of the President. Hence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has said that when the power is conferred to the President of India, the Ministry of the concerned department, cannot accord sanction. For that facts, the decision is correct. Whereas for the facts of this case, the decision referred has no application. Assets at the beginning of check period: 34. According to the prosecution, the details of the assets held by Jayaramn and his family at the beginning of the check period 01.01.1989 is as below: Sl. No. Assets In the name of Year of acquisition Value of assets in Rs. Remarks 1. SteelAlmirah (Streedhan) V. Jayaraman& Family 1986 --- Claimed as Streedhanby Shri V. Jayaraman, hence no value is given. 2. Steel Cot(Streedhan) V. Jayaraman& Family 1986 --- Claimed as Streedhanby Shri V. Jayaraman, hence no value is given. 3. Glass Show case V. Jayaraman & Family 1987 1,500 While taking inventory on 29.04.2004, Shri V.Jayaraman, declared this item to have been purchased in 1994. However while submitting I to VI statements, he declared it to have been purchased during 1987. Hence benefit is giving to him. 4. Wooden Sofa set V.Jayaraman & Family 1988 2,500 5. Wet Grinder Santha V.Jayaraman & Family 1986 1,500 6. Clothing and personal articles V.Jayaraman & Family 1986 to 1988 20,000 7. Ornaments & Jewellery V.Jayaraman & Family 1986 3,04,864 Claimed as Streedhanby Shri V. Jayaraman given to his wife Smt. Waheeda Jayaraman. 8. Bullet Motor Cycle V.Jayaraman 1978 10,000 9. Dining Table with four wooden chairs 1986 800 10. Steel Cot V.Jayaraman 1988 1,000 11. Clothing and personal articles V.Jayaraman & Family 1986 to 1988 20,000 7. Ornaments & Jewellery V.Jayaraman & Family 1986 3,04,864 Claimed as Streedhanby Shri V. Jayaraman given to his wife Smt. Waheeda Jayaraman. 8. Bullet Motor Cycle V.Jayaraman 1978 10,000 9. Dining Table with four wooden chairs 1986 800 10. Steel Cot V.Jayaraman 1988 1,000 11. Steel Almirah V.Jayaraman 1986 --- Claimed as Streedhanby Shri V. Jayaraman given to his wife Smt. Waheeda Jayaraman. In this regard, the appellants have no serious dispute regarding the list of properties held by them and its value. ASSETS AT THE END OF THE CHECK PERIOD AS ON 31.03.2004 Sl.No. Assets In the name of Year of acquisition Value of assets in Rs. Remarks 1. House at Q-52, Kovaipudur Coimbatore V.Jayaraman 24.04.89 12,15,010 Value based on the Valuation Report of Valuation Cell of Income Tax Department. 2. House at V-61, Kovaipudur Coimbatore Waheeda Jayaraman and P.Velu 10.09.03 21,46,000 Value based on the statement given by Shri E.Sekhar and registration charges. 3. House at No.3, Bharatiyar Street, V.Marudhur, Villupuram. Waheeda Jayaraman 22.05.98 5,44,721 Value based on the statement given by Smt.K.Prabhavati and registration charges. 4. Land at 54, Peruchettipalayam, Thondamuthur Panchayat, Coimbatore V.Jayaraman 1990 25,790 As per the documents seized from the house V.Jayaraman during the search. 5. Ornaments & Jewellery Jayaraman & Waheeda Jayaraman 1986-2004 4,96,864 The valuation was done with the help of an Appraiser, Indian Bank, Ram Nagar, CBE. 6. Motor Car (Maruti Zen) TN-07-D-3666 Waheeda Jayaraman 01.09.98 2,50,000 In the inventory V.Jayaraman had declared it as Rs.2,50,000/- and in the Statement III has declared it as Rs.2,60,000/ But the seller of the vehicle stated to have sold the vehicle for Rs.2,50,000/-. 7. Motor Car (Maruti 800) PY-01-E-9008 P.Velu 1996 1,00,000 The vehicle is in the name of Shri P.Velu (A3) stated to be purchased from his resources. 8. TVS Scooty Moped Daughter of V.Jayaraman 22.11.2000 27,885 Claimed as gift from parents of V.Jayaraman. The amount of Rs.27,885 was paid in cash by J.Vaishnavi. 9. Hero Ranger Bicycle V.Jayaraman & family 2002 3000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches on 29.04.2004. 10. Steel Almirah V.Jayaraman & family 1986 1,500 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 11. Steel Almirah V.Jayaraman & family 1986 ---- Claimed as a streedhan by V.Jayaraman, hence no value is given. 12. 9. Hero Ranger Bicycle V.Jayaraman & family 2002 3000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches on 29.04.2004. 10. Steel Almirah V.Jayaraman & family 1986 1,500 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 11. Steel Almirah V.Jayaraman & family 1986 ---- Claimed as a streedhan by V.Jayaraman, hence no value is given. 12. Steel Cot V.Jayaraman & family 1988 1000 Claimed as a streedhan by V.Jayaraman, hence no value is given. 13. Glass Showcase V.Jayaraman & family 1987 1,500 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 14. Wooden Sofa Set V.Jayaraman & family 1988 2,500 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 15. Dressing Table 1990 3,500 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 16. Dressing Table V.Jayaraman & family 1999 1,500 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 17. Computer Table & Chair V.Jayaraman & family 1998 1,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 18. Dress Stand Steel V.Jayaraman & family 2000 1,600 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 19. Steel Bench and Table V.Jayaraman & family 2000 1,500 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 20. Wooden cot with side table V.Jayaraman & family 2001 15,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 21. Wooden cot with side table V.Jayaraman & family 2001 15,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 22. Wooden Ward Robe V.Jayaraman & family 2001 15,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 23. Wooden Ward Robe V.Jayaraman & family 2001 15,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 24. Dressing Table Nitra V.Jayaraman & family 2002 5,870 As per cash bill seized from the house of V.Jayaraman during the search. 25. Wooden Cot (Double) V.Jayaraman & family 2003 17,233 As per cash bill seized from the house of V.Jayaraman during the search. 26. 6 piece sofa set V.Jayaraman & family 2003 23,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 27. Dressing Table V.Jayaraman & family 2003 2,841 As per cash bill seized from the house of V.Jayaraman and the statement of the Proprietor of M/s.Royal Agencies, CBE. 28. Tea Pai V.Jayaraman & family 2003 4,355 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the search. 29. 27. Dressing Table V.Jayaraman & family 2003 2,841 As per cash bill seized from the house of V.Jayaraman and the statement of the Proprietor of M/s.Royal Agencies, CBE. 28. Tea Pai V.Jayaraman & family 2003 4,355 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the search. 29. Dining Table (glass) with 6 chairs V.Jayaraman & family 2003 35,035 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the search. 30. Dining Table with four wooden chairs V.Jayaraman & family 1983 800 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 31. TV stand V.Jayaraman & family 2003 4,658 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the search. 32. TV stand-glass V.Jayaraman & family 2004 5,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the search. 33. Dressing Table V.Jayaraman & family 2004 2,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 34. Tea Pai V.Jayaraman & family 2004 2,600 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 35. Sharp VCD Player V.Jayaraman & family 1994 5,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 36. Onida Colour TV V.Jayaraman & family 1997 20,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 37. Grundig TV V.Jayaraman & family 1997 30,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 38. Assembled PC with DVD player V.Jayaraman & family 1998 30,000 39. Aiwa walkman V.Jayaraman & family 2000 1,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 40. Mobile Phone Motorola V.Jayaraman & family 2000 ---- 41. BP Apparatus-Digital V.Jayaraman & family 2002 2,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 42. Sanyo CD player V.Jayaraman & family 2002 3,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 43. Sony DVD player with speakers V.Jayaraman & family 2002 16,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 44. Cell Phone – Nokia 2100 V.Jayaraman & family 2003 5,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 45. Cell Phone – Samsung V.Jayaraman & family 2003 7,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 46. Cell Phone – Nokia 6610 V.Jayaraman & family 2003 8,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 47. Cordless Phone Panasonic V.Jayaraman & family 2003 5,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 48. Cell Phone Nokia 3310 V.Jayaraman & family 2003 5,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 49. 46. Cell Phone – Nokia 6610 V.Jayaraman & family 2003 8,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 47. Cordless Phone Panasonic V.Jayaraman & family 2003 5,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 48. Cell Phone Nokia 3310 V.Jayaraman & family 2003 5,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 49. Air Conditioner LG 1.5 Ton 2 Nos V.Jayaraman & family 2001 70,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 50. Wet Grinder – Santha V.Jayaraman & family 1986 1,500 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 51. AquaGuard – Eureka Forbes V.Jayaraman & family 1996 4,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 52. Refrigerator-LG double door V.Jayaraman & family 2001 7,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 53. Washing Machine Whirlpool V.Jayaraman & family 2001 10,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 54. Ceiling Fan – Usha V.Jayaraman & family 2001 1,500 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 55. Ceiling Fan Crompton Greaves – 2 No 2003 3,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 56. Pedestal Fan Usha V.Jayaraman & family 2003 1,500 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 57. Wall Fan – Crompton Greaves V.Jayaraman & family 2003 1,500 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 58. Dish Washer- IFB V.Jayaraman & family 2003 15,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 59. Chandlier V.Jayaraman & family 2003 7,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 60. Vaccum Cleaner – Euroclean V.Jayaraman & family 2003 9,200 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 61. Geyser – 3 Nos V.Jayaraman & family 2004 12,072 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 62. Sharp ½ H.P. Motor V.Jayaraman & family 2003 2,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 63. Canon Camera V.Jayaraman & family 1995 3,500 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 64. Sony Digital Video Camera (Handycam) V.Jayaraman & family 2001 35,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 65. Rayban glass V.Jayaraman & family 1998 1,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 66. Wall Mountable waterfall V.Jayaraman & family 2000 1,100 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 67. 64. Sony Digital Video Camera (Handycam) V.Jayaraman & family 2001 35,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 65. Rayban glass V.Jayaraman & family 1998 1,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 66. Wall Mountable waterfall V.Jayaraman & family 2000 1,100 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 67. Assorted crackers V.Jayaraman & family 2003 2,500 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 68. Guitar V.Jayaraman & family 2003 2,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 69. Bathtub V.Jayaraman & family 2004 1,500 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 70. Shower (Hot & Cold system) 2 Nos. V.Jayaraman & family 2004 3,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 71. Utensils V.Jayaraman & family 1986-2004 2,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 72. Clothing & other personal articles V.Jayaraman & family 1986-2004 1,00,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 73. Carpet V.Jayaraman & family 1991 900 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 74. ICICI Tax Saving Bonds 2001 2003 20,00030,000 75. Balance in Indian Bank, Ram Nagar, Coimbatore (a/c No.1683) of A1 & A2 between 03.08.1995 and 31.01.2004. V.Jayaraman & Waheeda Jayaraman 65,853 76. 200 Equity shares of Rs.10 each at a premium of Rs.25 per share in Veejay Terry Products Limited, Coimbatore V.Jayaraman 1995 7,000 77. 200 Equity shares of Rs.10 each at a premium of Rs.20 per share in Dhandapani Spinning Mills Limited, CBE. V.Jayaraman & Waheeda Jayaraman 1994 6,000 78. 2000 Equity shares of Rs.10 each of M/s.Tulya Alloy Castings Limited, CBE. V.Jayaraman & Waheeda Jayaraman 1994 20,000 79. 600 shares of Rs.10/- each at a premium of Rs.35 per share of M/s.Mongrar Textiles Limited, Krishnapuram, Udumalpet. Waheeda Jayaraman 1995 27,000 80. 800 shares of Rs.10/- each of Southern Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. V.Jayaraman & Waheeda Jayaraman 1995 8,000 81. 100 shares of Rs.10 each of Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Chennai. Waheeda Jayaraman 1994 1,000 82. 100 shares of Rs.10 each of Presidency Shoe International Limited, Chennai. V.Jayaraman 1994 1,000 83. Akshya Deposit Certificate of ING Vysya Bank, A/c No.402092000156 Daughter of V.Jayaraman 1996 22,934 84. Akshya Deposit Certificate of ING Vysya Bank, A/c No.402092000164 Son of V.Jayaraman 1996 22,934 85. Term Deposit of InG Vysya A/c.No.402010047284 Waheeda Jayaraman 2003 10,000 86. 100 shares of Rs.10 each of Presidency Shoe International Limited, Chennai. V.Jayaraman 1994 1,000 83. Akshya Deposit Certificate of ING Vysya Bank, A/c No.402092000156 Daughter of V.Jayaraman 1996 22,934 84. Akshya Deposit Certificate of ING Vysya Bank, A/c No.402092000164 Son of V.Jayaraman 1996 22,934 85. Term Deposit of InG Vysya A/c.No.402010047284 Waheeda Jayaraman 2003 10,000 86. Sony Videogame instrument V.Jayaraman & family 2002 600 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 87. Digital Calendar V.Jayaraman & family 1996 150 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 88. Electronic calculator with leather bag V.Jayaraman & family 2001 150 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 89. Citizen Calcular V.Jayaraman & family 2002 300 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 90. Electrical slogan chanting machine V.Jayaraman & family 2003 200 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 91. Table watch V.Jayaraman & family 2001 250 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 92. Fremans Metal Wired Tape V.Jayaraman & family 2002 25 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 93. Sunnu Cordless Calling Bell V.Jayaraman & family 2000 150 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 94. Emergency lamp with fan V.Jayaraman & family 2002 900 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 95. Video game Mirada V.Jayaraman & family 2003 20 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 96. Rechargeable torch, Sanyo V.Jayaraman & family 1998 500 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches 97. Table Watch V.Jayaraman & family 2003 100 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 98. Wall clock, Ajantha V.Jayaraman 1994 100 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 99. Decorative lamps (2 Nos) V.Jayaraman & family 2004 450 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 100 Perfumes & Cosmetics V.Jayaraman & family 2004 3,500 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 101 Compass (Engineer make) V.Jayaraman & family 2000 150 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 102 Lory's watch V.Jayaraman & family 2003 100 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 103 Sony Walkman V.Jayaraman & family 2002 600 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 104 Decorative table lamp V.Jayaraman & family 2002 300 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 102 Lory's watch V.Jayaraman & family 2003 100 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 103 Sony Walkman V.Jayaraman & family 2002 600 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 104 Decorative table lamp V.Jayaraman & family 2002 300 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 105 Marlboro cigarettes King Size Fliptop Box V.Jayaraman & family 2002 200 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 106 Police Sunglasses V.Jayaraman & family 2000 4000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 107 Infant Dress Pack V.Jayaraman & family 2003 200 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 108 Wooden Decorative Show piece V.Jayaraman & family 2002 400 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 109 Corner Flower Stand V.Jayaraman & family 2000 400 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 110 Wooden corner telephone stand V.Jayaraman & family 1994 400 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 111 Small Chairs – 2 Nos V.Jayaraman & family 1999 600 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 112 Flower Pots – 5 Nos V.Jayaraman & family 2003 500 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 113 Decorative Dragon – Table item V.Jayaraman & family 2000 350 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 114 Decorative Table Clock V.Jayaraman & family 2002 400 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 115 Wall Clock Wooden V.Jayaraman & family 2000 400 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 116 Decorative Lamp V.Jayaraman & family 2004 500 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 117 Decorative Lamp V.Jayaraman & family 2004 200 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 118 Fancy toy (monkey made in coconut) V.Jayaraman & family 2004 100 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 119 Image mixer 2software and magazine V.Jayaraman 2004 100 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 120 D.K.Ultimate visual dictionary V.Jayaraman & family 2003 500 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 121 Wrist Watches (3 Nos) V.Jayaraman & family 2004 750 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 122 Decorative Mirror V.Jayaraman & family 2004 800 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 120 D.K.Ultimate visual dictionary V.Jayaraman & family 2003 500 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 121 Wrist Watches (3 Nos) V.Jayaraman & family 2004 750 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 122 Decorative Mirror V.Jayaraman & family 2004 800 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 123 Glass Bowls V.Jayaraman & family 2004 300 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 124 Ezee clean vacuum cleaner V.Jayaraman & family 2003 800 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 125 Dry Fruits V.Jayaraman & family 2003 100 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 126 Sweets V.Jayaraman & family 2003 400 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 127 Aluminium ladder V.Jayaraman & family 2003 600 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 128 Crackers V.Jayaraman & family 2003 500 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 129 Dinner Set Dolphin V.Jayaraman & family 2002 750 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 130 Citizen Wall Clock V.Jayaraman & family 1986 300 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 131 Deluxe Rice Cooker with steamer V.Jayaraman & family 2003 1200 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 132 Saravana Mixie V.Jayaraman & family 1986 800 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 133 Utensils V.Jayaraman & family 1986-2004 7,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 134 Exhaust Fan V.Jayaraman & family 2003 600 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 135 Small Fan V.Jayaraman & family 2004 350 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 136 Divine Photos, idols and pooja items V.Jayaraman & family 2003-2004 5,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 137 Cloth Stand V.Jayaraman & family 1999 300 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 138 Suit cases (4 Nos) V.Jayaraman & family 1994-2003 1,200 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 139 Bags (7 Nos) V.Jayaraman & family 1994-2003 1,400 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 140 Bed & Mattresses V.Jayaraman 2004 600 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 141 Schools Books – 20 Nos V.Jayaraman & family 2003-2004 800 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 139 Bags (7 Nos) V.Jayaraman & family 1994-2003 1,400 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 140 Bed & Mattresses V.Jayaraman 2004 600 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 141 Schools Books – 20 Nos V.Jayaraman & family 2003-2004 800 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 142 Tables clock V.Jayaraman & family 2003 150 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 143 Sanyo Cassette Player V.Jayaraman & family 1984 500 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 144 Electric Iron V.Jayaraman & family 1998 400 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 145 Hair Aid V.Jayaraman & family 2003 100 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 146 Citizen wrist wach V.Jayaraman & family 2003 1,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 147 Foreign Liquors (10 Bottles) V.Jayaraman & family 1997-2004 800 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 148 Sofa set (2+1) V.Jayaraman & family 1996 2,500 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 149 Swing V.Jayaraman & family 1994 800 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 150 Lights V.Jayaraman & family 1999 1,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 151 Toys V.Jayaraman & family 2000-2004 800 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 152 Dress materials of different sizes V.Jayaraman & family 2002-2003 25,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 153 Hindware western style W.C. V.Jayaraman & family 2004 1,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 154 T.V. stand V.Jayaraman & family 2004 8,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 155 Mirror V.Jayaraman & family 2004 1,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 156 Kitchen knives V.Jayaraman & family 2003 1,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 157 Clothes of different sizes (6 cortons) V.Jayaraman & family 2000-2004 1,00,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 158 Sanyo emergency lamp V.Jayaraman & family 1996 600 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 159 Mirror (2 Nos) V.Jayaraman & family 2002 400 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 160 Tea poy V.Jayaraman & family 1998 200 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 158 Sanyo emergency lamp V.Jayaraman & family 1996 600 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 159 Mirror (2 Nos) V.Jayaraman & family 2002 400 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 160 Tea poy V.Jayaraman & family 1998 200 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 161 Kodak Camera V.Jayaraman & family 2000 999 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 162 Aiwa Walkman V.Jayaraman & family 2000 1,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 163 Dresses, clothes V.Jayaraman & family 2002-2004 3,000 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 164 Footwear (6 New, 1 Old) V.Jayaraman & family 2004 900 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 165 Sony walkman V.Jayaraman & family 2002 500 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 166 Purse V.Jayaraman & family 2004 35 As per inventory declared by V.Jayaraman during the searches. 167 Cash V.Jayaraman & family 2004 40,110 Cash found during the time of the search in the house of V.Jayaraman. 168 Investment in the name of J.Vaishnavi (daughter) in Anuubhav Agro & Housing Developers, Chennai 16.08.98 18.07.96 In the name of the daughter of V.Jayaraman and paid by V.Jayaraman 9,80015,000 169 Investment in the name of J.Vishnu Ramana (son) in Anuubhav Agro & Housing Developers, Chennai 16.03.98 18.07.96 In the name of the son of V.Jayaraman and paid by V.Jayaraman 9,80015,000 170 Investment in the name of Waheeda Jayaraman in Anuubhav Agro & Housing Developers, Chennai 08.06.199816.06.1998 Waheeda Jayaraman 25,00025,000 171 Fixed Deposit, Receipt No.56376 of Indian Bank, Ram Nagar, CBE. V.Jayaraman 6,000 172 Indra Vikas Patra No.37D619197 V.Jayaraman 200 Total 60,02,694 35. The learned senior counsel appearing for A.1/appellant in Crl.A(MD)No.557 of 2007 would submit that as far as the property shown as item No.1, house at Q-52, Kovaipudur, Coimbatore, there is no document produced by the prosecution to show that A.1 was holding this asset in his name at the end of check period. Even assuming the property stands in the name of A.1, the value of the said property is only Rs.5,42,400/- and not Rs.12,15,010/- as claimed by the prosecution. For the said purpose, the learned senior counsel would rely upon Ex.P.79, the intimation register which is maintained intra-department regarding the property acquired by the public servant. Even assuming the property stands in the name of A.1, the value of the said property is only Rs.5,42,400/- and not Rs.12,15,010/- as claimed by the prosecution. For the said purpose, the learned senior counsel would rely upon Ex.P.79, the intimation register which is maintained intra-department regarding the property acquired by the public servant. In the said intimation register, A.1 has informed the employer that he is going to put up additional construction at the ground floor of the house and the value of the addition will be Rs.1,20,000/-. For the said purpose, A.1 has also enclosed the details regarding cost. Further, when additional construction was put up at the first floor, he has disclosed to the employer that the cost of construction has been valued at Rs.2,75,000/-. To put up the said construction, the accused has obtained loan from HDFC Bank, even there, he has disclosed the value of the property for less than the value shown by the prosecution. 36. Further, the learned senior counsel would contend that the property was purchased prior to the check period and the process for purchasing the properties started during the month of June, 1988. The value of the property at the time of purchase was Rs.1,47,400/-. Having purchased the plot for Rs.1,47,400/- with the money mobilized through personal savings, GPF withdrawal, loan from wife, gift from the father, loan from co-brother and jewel loan were all mobilized prior to the check period. Since the source for purchasing the plot for Rs.1,47,400/- has been already intimated to the department and the same is being reflected in Ex.P.79 much prior to the check period, this amount has to be excluded. Likewise, the value of the addition made to the property, is only for the value to an extent what intimated to the employer. During the year 1991, it was to an extent of Rs.1,20,000/- only and during the month of June, 1995 it was to an extent of Rs.2,75,500/- only. 37. The learned senior counsel appearing for A.1/appellant in Crl.A(MD)No.557 of 2007 would emphasis that as intimated to his employer and as reflected in Ex.P.79, he has purchased the plot for Rs.1,47,400/- from the funds mobilized prior to the check period, spent only Rs.1,20,000/- for extension in the year 1991 and Rs.2,75,000/- in the year 1995 for further extension. 37. The learned senior counsel appearing for A.1/appellant in Crl.A(MD)No.557 of 2007 would emphasis that as intimated to his employer and as reflected in Ex.P.79, he has purchased the plot for Rs.1,47,400/- from the funds mobilized prior to the check period, spent only Rs.1,20,000/- for extension in the year 1991 and Rs.2,75,000/- in the year 1995 for further extension. He has explained the source to his employer while putting up construction and therefore would submit that even if the cost of the plot Rs.1,47,000/- purchased with the fund mobilized prior to the check period is taken into account, the entire value of the first item property will only be Rs.5,42,000/- [1,47,000 + 1,20,000 + 2,75,000]. 38. Per contra, as per the evidence let in by the prosecution and accepted by the Court below, the value of the first item property is Rs.12,15,010/- including the registration charge. The prosecution case is based on the evidence of P.W.15, Civil Engineer cum Valuer and P.W.17, Electrical Engineer cum Valuer. Their valuation certificates with break-up is marked as Ex.P.42 and Ex.P.46 respectively. According to Ex.P.42, the probable cost of the investment in the building located at Q-52, Kovaipudur, Coimbatore, is estimated as Rs.4,25,000/- for the ground floor and Rs.6,32,200/- for the first floor. The above valuation does not include the cost of land and furniture. This valuation certificate is given by one Vellaisamy, Valuation Officer attached to Income Tax Department. For the said property, Electrical Engineer has estimated the value of the accessories and electrical work found in the building is worth Rs.22,810/-. Taking into consideration of these two valuation certificates, the prosecution has fixed the value of the property as Rs.12,15,010/-. 39. The said valuation certificate is attacked on the ground that in Ex.P.42 there is no detail regarding cost index. Without deriving the cost, the value of the property could not be ascertained. To counter the information of the valuers marked as Ex.P.42 and Ex.P.46, the defence would rely upon Ex.D.6, valuation given by one Jothilingam, who has estimated the value of the building as Rs.5,75,000/-. 40. Comparing the valuation reflected in Ex.D.6 with that of the valuation reflected in Ex.P.42 and Ex.P.46, it is contended by the learned senior counsel that the prosecution has deliberately inflated the value of the property, namely House Q-52, Kovaipudur, Coimbatore, detrimental to the interest of A.1. 41. 40. Comparing the valuation reflected in Ex.D.6 with that of the valuation reflected in Ex.P.42 and Ex.P.46, it is contended by the learned senior counsel that the prosecution has deliberately inflated the value of the property, namely House Q-52, Kovaipudur, Coimbatore, detrimental to the interest of A.1. 41. This submission has been rightly rejected by the Trial Court by referring Ex.P.80, which is the annual property returned by A.1 given to his department. In this document, A.1 himself has relied upon the valuation certificate given by one Manickavasakam, who has assessed the value of the building as Rs.11,27,000/-. To his department, before registration of the case, the accused has relied upon the valuation certificate given by Manickavasakam, which shows it worth Rs.11,27,000/-. Whereas after investigation, he has obtained valuation certificate from another engineer and marked it as Ex.D.6, wherein the valuation is under-estimated at Rs.5,75,000/-. This Court finds no reason to disagree with the view taken by the Trial Court in this regard. While the records presented by A.1 to his employer which is prior to the registration of the case concedes the value of the first item property as Rs.11,27,000/-, the subsequent valuation certificate obtained from different valuers after launching the prosecution being self-serving in nature to meet out the charge of disproportionate asset, need not be taken into consideration. Further intimation to the department and the proposed costs likely to incur to put up the construction is not a proof for value or the fact of construction. Physical examination of the building and item wise assessment alone will reflect the real value. In this case, it is Ex.P.42 and Ex.P.46 provide the true value. 42. Further relying upon the entries made in Ex.P.79, though the learned senior counsel would submit that the cost for purchase of first item property, Rs.1,47,400/- was mobilized much before the check period, the facts on record indicates that the property was purchased only during the check period and not prior to the check period. Indicating the source of income to the department to establish prima facie the public servant has source to purchase property. It does not necessarily mean that he had the money in his hand on the date of seeking permission. It is the date on which the payment made and property acquired is to be taken into account. Therefore, Rs.1,47,400/- cannot be excluded from the value of item No.1. 43. It does not necessarily mean that he had the money in his hand on the date of seeking permission. It is the date on which the payment made and property acquired is to be taken into account. Therefore, Rs.1,47,400/- cannot be excluded from the value of item No.1. 43. As far as item No.2, house property at V-61, Kovaipudur, Coimbatore, which stands jointly in the name of A.2 and A.3 which valued at Rs.21,46,000/- by the CBI, the accused have claimed that the value of the building is only Rs.11,10,000/-. It is to be pointed, even for Rs.11,10,000/-, both A.2 and A.3 had no adequate income. As already pointed out, for the properties either purchased in his name or in the name of his wife and father, the public servant cannot conveniently quote 15 acres of dry land as source of income which proved to be stood barren for major part of the period, through the evidence of revenue officials. 44. When the prosecution has proved through P.W.30, the vendor of the property and P.W.37, the Sub Registrar that the value shown in the document is a deflated value to avoid the stamp duty as well as to screen the excess money paid from and out of illegal source of income, A.1 cannot rely upon Section 91 of Indian Evidence Act and contend that the value what he has shown in the sale deed alone can be taken as the true consideration paid by the accused. 45. The Trial Court after considering different valuation certificate placed by either side and also the evidence of Sub Registrar, who has found that Ex.P.56, the sale deed pertaining to the second item property, does not reflect the true consideration passed on. The said property has been sold by E.Sekar (P.W.30) and his wife Maheswari on 10.09.2003. P.W.30 has given a confession statement before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. III, Madurai that he actually sold the property to accused 2 and 3 for Rs.19,46,000/-. A part of sale consideration Rs.9,56,000/- has been paid by A.1 through banker cheque. Rs.2,00,000/- has been paid towards registration charge. The vendor Sekar had purchased the said property through bank loan and the said loan has been discharged on the sale of the property to A.2 and A.3. A part of sale consideration Rs.9,56,000/- has been paid by A.1 through banker cheque. Rs.2,00,000/- has been paid towards registration charge. The vendor Sekar had purchased the said property through bank loan and the said loan has been discharged on the sale of the property to A.2 and A.3. The bank officials, the document writer and the Sub Registrar, who registered the document of the sale deed and 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the approver, have been taken note by the Court below, besides the valuation certificate issued by the valuer attached to Income Tax Department. 46. The contra evidence let in by the defence has also been taken note by the Trial Court to assess the value of the property bearing No.V-61, Kovaipudur, Coimbatore. This building was originally purchased by E.Sekar and his wife for a sale consideration of Rs.5,75,000/- in the year 2002. Thereafter, he has demolished the building and had put up a new construction. Ex.P.72, valuation certificate given for the new building constructed by P.W.30, reveals that the property with 450 square feet is valued at Rs.9,60,000/-. From the evidence of P.W.30, we find that he has thereafter started put up further construction in an extent of 1,500 square feet. At that time, A.1 has approached him and offered to purchase the property. It is borne by record that this property has been sold by P.W.30 to A.2 and A.3. The sale consideration has been received by P.W.30 only through A.1. A.1 who has been examined as a defence witness, admits that he involved in the negotiation of price, while purchasing the property, which is corroborated by A.2 in her evidence. From their admitted evidence, 450 square feet of land and building which was worth Rs.9,60,000/- had been improved with additional construction to an extent of 1,500 square feet and at the verge of completion, A.1 and A.2 have approached P.W.30 to sell the property, they suggested him certain alteration in the building to be carried out in accordance with vastu and thereafter they have purchased the completed building. In such circumstances, just because they have availed loan for Rs.9,50,000/- one cannot presume that the property is worth only Rs.9,50,000/-. In such circumstances, just because they have availed loan for Rs.9,50,000/- one cannot presume that the property is worth only Rs.9,50,000/-. The additional inputs made in the building were paid in cash and the same is established by the prosecution through the evidence of P.W.30 and the evidence of P.W.37, Sub Registrar, who has moderately assessed the value of the property at Rs.14,96,122/-. The appellants have agreed to the said assessment of undervaluation and had paid the difference stamp duty and penalty, which could be seen from Ex.P.85. So, at any rate, the value of the property would not be less than Rs.14,96,122/- on the date of registration of the property. 47. As pointed out earlier, though the learned senior counsel appearing for A.1 would rely upon certain entries made in Ex.P.79, they do not reveal that the said statement furnished by the accused for the purpose of getting permission to purchase the properties are true and genuine. When contra evidence is placed by the prosecution to show the properties purchased by the accused, more particularly, item Nos.1, 2 and 3 are higher than the value declared by the public servant and the source of income for purchasing the properties were farce and not genuine source. The Trial Court has rightly rejected the submissions made by the appellants to justify the value of the property as well as the source for purchasing those property. 48. The same analogy is applied to item No.3, which is a house bearing No.3, Bharatiyar Street, V.Marudhur, Villupuram District. This property has been purchased by A.2 on 04.11.1996. The sale deed indicates that the consideration for this property is Rs.2,75,000/-. Whereas the prosecution has assessed the value as Rs.5,44,721/-. The prosecution could able to prove the correct sale consideration passed on from A.2 to the vendor P.W.29 through the evidence of P.W.29 as well as the sale agreement deed entered between the parties which has been seized during the search of the premises and marked as Ex.P.64. This document reveals that A.2 and K.Prabhavathy, wife of Sudarsanam had entered into a sale agreement on 22.03.1994 in respect of the third item property, wherein as vendor, Prabhavathi has agreed to sell the property for Rs.4,85,000/- and towards part sale consideration received Rs.1,00,000/- on the same day. This document reveals that A.2 and K.Prabhavathy, wife of Sudarsanam had entered into a sale agreement on 22.03.1994 in respect of the third item property, wherein as vendor, Prabhavathi has agreed to sell the property for Rs.4,85,000/- and towards part sale consideration received Rs.1,00,000/- on the same day. On the back of this document, there is an endorsement that on 21.05.1995 a further sum of Rs.2,00,000/- has been received from A.2 by the vendor Prabhavathy. When the sale deed Ex.P.65, came to be registered on 22.05.1998, the consideration has been shown as only Rs.2,75,000/-. 49. It is contended by the learned senior counsel appearing for A.1 that Ex.P.64 being an unregistered document, it cannot be relied upon. Ex.P.64 is an Agreement to Sell immovable property. At that point of time, registration of a sale agreement was not a mandatory requirement. The Court cannot loose sight of the fact when parties have agreed in writing for a particular amount as sale consideration and after passing of that consideration in order to avoid stamp duty and for other obvious reasons, if parties by consent have shown lesser consideration, one cannot turn a nelson eye and reject the documentary evidence between the same parties, proves the contrary. In this case, obviously Ex.P.65, sale deed does not reflect the true consideration passed on to the vendor. This view is fortified through the evidence of the vendor himself. The only defence putforth by the appellants is that the evidence of approver cannot be relied upon, since pardon was not tendered by the Special Court, but by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Further the evidence of approver is not a reliable evidence and it required corroboration. For the said purpose, the learned senior counsel would rely upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sheshanna Bhumanna Yadav v. State of Maharashtra reported in 1970(2) Supreme Court Cases 122, wherein it is held as below: “12. The law with regard to appreciation of approver's evidence is based on the effect of sections 133 and 114 illustration (b) of the Evidence Act, namely, that an accomplice is competent to depose but as a rule of caution it will be unsafe to convict upon his testimony alone. The warning of the danger of convicting on uncorroborated evidence is therefore given when the evidence is that of an accomplice. The warning of the danger of convicting on uncorroborated evidence is therefore given when the evidence is that of an accomplice. The primary meaning of accomplice is any party to the crime charged and some one who aids and abets the commission of crime. The nature of corroboration is that it is confirmatory evidence and it may consist of the evidence of second witness or of circumstances like the conduct of the person against whom it is required. Corroboration must connect or tend to connect the accused with the time. When it is said that the corroborative evidence must implicate the accused in material particulars it means that it is not enough that a piece of evidence tends to confirm the truth of a part of the testimony to be corroborated. That evidence must confirm that part of the testimony which suggests that the crime was committed by the accused. If a witness says that the accused and he stole the sheep and he put the skins in a certain place, the discovery of the skins in that place would not corroborate the evidence of the witness as against the accused. But if the skins were found in the accused's house, this would corroborate because it would tend to confirm the statement that the accused had some hand in the theft. 13. This Court stated the law of corroboration of accomplice evidence in several decisions. One of the earlier decision is Sorwan Singh v. State of Punjab ( 1957 SCR 953 ) and the recent decision is Lachi Ram v. State of Punjab ( 1967 SCR 243 ). In Sarwan Singh's case( supra), this Court laid down that before the court would look into the corroborative evidence it was necessary to find out whether the approver or accomplice was a reliable witness. This Court in Lachi Ram's case (supra) said that the first test of reliability of approver and accomplice evidence was for the court to be satisfied that there was nothing inherently impossible in evidence. After that conclusion is reached as to reliability corroboration is required. The rule as to corroboration is based on the reasoning that there must be sufficient corroborative evidence in material particulars to connect the accused with the crime”. 50. After that conclusion is reached as to reliability corroboration is required. The rule as to corroboration is based on the reasoning that there must be sufficient corroborative evidence in material particulars to connect the accused with the crime”. 50. First of all, it is to be made clear that the provisions of P.C. Act enables the Special Court to record the statement of the approver, but it does not preclude the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who under the code competent to accord pardon. As far as the reliability of the approver evidence, though Indian Evidence Act made clear that approver evidence is an admissible evidence, it has also added a rider that it should be corroborated by independent substantive piece of evidence. In this case, de hors of the evidence, P.W.29 and P.W.30, the prosecution has let in independent substantive piece of evidence to prove that the value shown in the respective sale deeds are not the actual value. In the said circumstances, this Court finds no force in the submissions made by the learned senior counsel appearing for A.2 regarding the valuation of items 1, 2 and 3 of the properties as assessed by the prosecution and accepted by the Trial Court. 51. In the entire list of assets held by the accused except the motor car (Maruti Zen), valued at Rs.2,50,000/-, which the prosecution has miserably failed to correlate with any of the three accused as its owner, this Court finds no error either in the value of the assets or the allegation that these properties were purchased either in the name of A.1, A.2 or A.3 through unknown source of A.1 and the known source of A.2 and A.3 is not adequate enough to purchase those properties. 52. INCOME DURING THE CHECK PERIOD FROM 01.01.1989 TO 31.03.2004 : Sl.No. Details of claimed income NET INCOME (Rs)OF THEACCUSED AS PER (GROSS INCOME OF THE ACCISED NO.1 IS TAKEN AS BASIS FOR CALCULATING HIS DOMESTIC EXPENDITURE) Source of Information/evidence Remarks, if any Accused I.O. 1. Salary income of V. Jayaraman1.1.89-30.6.89 1.7.89-31.3.92 4/92 - 3/94 1.4.94-31.12.94 19.1.95-31.8.95 9/95 - 1/97 2/97 - 6/98 1.7.98-4.6.99 5.6.99-7.4.00 10.4.00-28.2.01 1.3.01-31.10.02 11/02 - 10/03 1.11.03-31.12.03 01.01.04- 29.02.04 V.Jayaraman 12,85567,335 64,722 36,498 23,120 90,157 1,25,551 70,191 1,00,682 98,513 1,044 DA arrears 8,048 pay arrears 2,07,419 4,379 DA arrears 3,625 Uniform All. Salary income of V. Jayaraman1.1.89-30.6.89 1.7.89-31.3.92 4/92 - 3/94 1.4.94-31.12.94 19.1.95-31.8.95 9/95 - 1/97 2/97 - 6/98 1.7.98-4.6.99 5.6.99-7.4.00 10.4.00-28.2.01 1.3.01-31.10.02 11/02 - 10/03 1.11.03-31.12.03 01.01.04- 29.02.04 V.Jayaraman 12,85567,335 64,722 36,498 23,120 90,157 1,25,551 70,191 1,00,682 98,513 1,044 DA arrears 8,048 pay arrears 2,07,419 4,379 DA arrears 3,625 Uniform All. 14,500 Rewards 1,42,502 23,659 17,288 Letters from DDOs of the place of posting concerned and their statements u/s 161 CrPC. 2. Salary income of Waheeda Jayaraman from 01.01.1989 to March, 2004 91,300 Letter and statement of Principal, The Ahsram M.H.S.S. CBE for the period from 2000 to March, 2004. 3. Other income of V.Jayaraman (GPF part final withdrawal) 1990 December, 1991 15.06.95 5.2.99 18,000 (no reason could be trace)50,000 (no reason could be traced) 80,000 (Construction of house) 50,000 (alteration of house). The other part final withdrawals/advances are construed to be spent for the purposes like ayurvedic treatment, religious ceremony. Letter and statement of Shri P.Sreedharan, Chief Accounts Officer, PAO, O/o Commr. Of Central Excise, Coimbatore. 4. Interest income of Waheeda Jayaraman (a/c No.3968, IOB, Kovaipudur) 9,548 As per the statement of account and witness. 5. Personal Loan taken by V.Jayaraman from Citi bank 1,00,000 Letter from T.A. Sampath Kumar, Manager Customer Care, Citibank, Chennai. 6. Housing Loan to Waheeda Jayaraman and P.Velu from State Bank of India 9,50,000 Letter from State Bank of India, Race Course Branch, CBE. 7. Dividend from 200 equity shares held in Veejay Terry Products Limited, Cooimbatore V.Jayaraman 840 Letter dated 07.07.2005 from Office Executive of Veejay Terry Products Limited, Coimbatore . 8. Dividend from 100 shares of Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Chennai V.Jayaraman 327125 125 Dividend voucher seized from the house of V.Jayaraman 9. Net income from ICICI Tax Savings Bond, 2000 redeemed in January, 2004 V.Jayaraman 2,4051,864 Dividend voucher and statement of bank account seized from the house of V.Jayaraman 10. Interest earned on ICICI Safety Bonds 2001 V.Jayaraman 1,800 Dividend vouchers, letter of ICICI and statement of bank account seized from the house of V.Jayaraman 11. Interest earned on ICICI Safety Bonds 2001 V.Jayaraman 1,892 Dividend vouchers, letter of ICICI and statement of bank account seized from the house of V.Jayaraman 12. Interest on ICICI Tax Savings Bond, 2003. V.Jayaraman 2,117 Dividend vouchers, letter of ICICI and statement of bank account seized from the house of V.Jayaraman 13. Interest earned on ICICI Safety Bonds 2001 V.Jayaraman 1,892 Dividend vouchers, letter of ICICI and statement of bank account seized from the house of V.Jayaraman 12. Interest on ICICI Tax Savings Bond, 2003. V.Jayaraman 2,117 Dividend vouchers, letter of ICICI and statement of bank account seized from the house of V.Jayaraman 13. Loan no 328544 Dt 12.7.91 from HDFC for house construction (Q-52) V.Jayaraman 1,00,000 Letter from HDFC and documents seized from the house of V.Jayaraman 14. Loan no 369921 Dt 24.7.95 from HDFC CBE for house construction (first floor of Q-52) V.Jayaraman 1,00,000 Letter from HDFC and documents seized from the house of V.Jayaraman 15. Interest Income from Savings Bank A/c No.1683 of Indian Bank, Ram Nagar, CBE from 1995-2004 V.Jayaraman & Waheeda Jayaraman 13,266 Statement of account in respect of S.B.A/c.No.1683 of Indian Bank, Ram Nagar, CBE and statement of Sr. Manager of the bank. Statement of account for the period from 1989 to 1995 were not available in the bank. 16. Interest credited to S.B.A/c No.193071 of Bank of Baroda, Main Br. CBE between 30.06.1995 and 05.09.1996 Waheeda Jayaraman 327 Statement of account from Chief Manager of the bank. Statements prior to 10.05.95 are not available with the bank as per their letter. The account was closed on 05.09.96. 17. Rental income from House No.Q-52 for the period 2002-2003 V.Jayaraman 36,000 Acknowledged IT returns for the years 2003-2004. The remaining years, the accused did not show any rental income in his IT returns. 18. Refund of Income Tax 12.04.200011.01.2000 V.Jayaraman 1,5663,601 19. Loan from Smt. P.Anusuya on 31.03.1989 V.Jayaraman 38,000 20. Gift from Shri.P.Velu (A3) in the year 1989 V.Jayaraman 30,000 Information given by V.Jayaraman to his department 21. Interest free loan from Shri P.Velu (A3) on 18.12.1995 V.Jayaraman 75,000 Information given by V.Jayaraman to his department 22. Sale of Bullet Motor Cycle V.Jayaraman 19,000 23. Agriculture income of Shri.P.Velu (A3) P.Velu 2,98,800 24. Pension income of Shri P.Velu (A3) P.Velu 3,28,910 Total 34,47,901 53. The contention of the appellants is that A.2 had salaried income as a lecturer in a pharmacy college as well as she was taking tuition to augur enough income to purchase the property held in her name. It is also contended that A.3 had agricultural income derived through his land and also through lease of 15 acres of land and 4 acres of leasehold respectively. It is also contended that A.3 had agricultural income derived through his land and also through lease of 15 acres of land and 4 acres of leasehold respectively. But, they have not produced any document to show that under whom he was the lessee. 54. Regarding the tuition income as claimed by A.2, which she has derived during the check period, she has filed a self-serving affidavit of A.2 filed as Ex.D.24 declaring her income as Rs.1,40,000/- for the period 1995-2001. But she admits that there is no record to substantiate her claim regarding her tuition income. The Income Tax Return prepared by P.W.22, Chartered Accountant, which is marked as Ex.P.54, does not carry any corroborative evidence. This Return is for the Assessment Year 2004-2005 submitted in ITO Ward II, Coimbatore on 21.12.2004. Her other Income Tax Returns filed for the Assessment Year 1996-1997 filed on 17.02.1999 reveals that her annual income is only Rs.42,000/-. It has increased to Rs.78,888/- during the year 2004-2005. With this income, it is hard to believe that she could able to purchase properties worth several lakhs during the relevant period, purely from her own source of income. 55. According to A.1, his wife and father [both are accused in this case] had substantially lent money to him for purchase of this property and for improving the property. It is very amusing to hear that for the property held in the name of A.1, he quotes his wife and father as source. As far as the properties held by them [wife and father], he say that they had own independent income. But, neither his wife, Waheeda nor his father Velu had enough source of income to purchase movables and immovables and also to invest in shares. 56. The known source for these two accused is the salaried income as professor and the pensionary income as a retired head constable, respectively. D.W.3, the brother of A.1 in the cross-examination concedes that he is not aware of the pharmacy college in which A.2 was working as professor. He is not aware of the salary given to her. 57. 56. The known source for these two accused is the salaried income as professor and the pensionary income as a retired head constable, respectively. D.W.3, the brother of A.1 in the cross-examination concedes that he is not aware of the pharmacy college in which A.2 was working as professor. He is not aware of the salary given to her. 57. As far as the agricultural income of A.3 is concerned, though the accused/appellants claimed that A.2 possesses agricultural land to an extent of 12 acres even according to their evidence, Shanmugam (D.W.4) and Gunasekaran (D.W.5) had not lent much support to the case of the appellants that A.2 was deriving income by cultivating his entire land and for all these fifteen years. In fact, D.W.4 and D.W.5 go to the extent of saying that for A.2 apart from his 15 acres land, he has also taken 4 acres of land for lease. But, there is no material to show from whom he has taken lease and what he is cultivating, through whom he is cultivating and how much income he derived through it. Being a pensioner, if really he had income of more than 1.5 lakhs per year, as claimed by the defence, his income should have exceeded the taxable limit, though agricultural income is excluded from tax, he cannot exclude the income for assessment. For all these reasons, the Trial Court has rightly disbelieved the case of the accused that the source shown for purchasing the property in the name of the public servant as well as in the name of his wife and father are fake. 58. The learned senior counsel appearing for A.1 would submit that GPF loan availed by A.2 for medical treatment ought not to have been excluded from the income head under the presumption that the money has been spent for Ayurvedic treatment. Further the tuition income A.2 to the tune of Rs.2,16,000/- has not been included. In this aspect, it is to be noted that the Trial Court after considering the rival submissions regarding the tuition income of A.2 and the Income Tax Return submitted by her, has observed that A.2 was earlier working as teacher in Ashram Matriculation School, Coimbatore between 2000-2001 and 2003-2004. Her salary details is reflected in Ex.P.8 and spoken by P.W.5, the Principal of Ashram Matriculation High Secondary School, Coimbatore. Her salary was Rs.3,500/- per month. Her salary details is reflected in Ex.P.8 and spoken by P.W.5, the Principal of Ashram Matriculation High Secondary School, Coimbatore. Her salary was Rs.3,500/- per month. GPF : 59. The Trial Court has observed that it has gone through the entire file marked as Ex.P.37 which relates to GPF of A.1. P.W.12 has deposed about the content of the document. He has given a detailed information of the withdrawals made A.1 under GPF scheme and the purpose for which he has availed the loan. If one has to accept the details found in the GPF file of A.1, the loan availed by him for Ayurvedic medical expenses has been utilized for the said purpose and he has given a utilization certificate for that effect. Having said that he has spend that money for Ayurvedic treatment, now he cannot contradict his own statement and say that the said loan amounts should be brought under the head income and should not be added under the head expenditure. The Trial Court has justified in rejecting the submission of A.1 in this regard and this Court finds no error in it. 60. Having deducted 1/3rd towards household articles by adding Rs.2,32,400/- being the value of clothes and other articles is needless, a sum of Rs.2,32,400/- has to be reduced from the head value of the assets held at the end of check period. 61. From the cumulative assessment of the statement of assets and the expenditure, in the light of the submissions made by the appellants counsels challenging the finding of the Trial Court, this Court finds that except deleting the value of Maruti Zen, Rs.2,50,000/- from the heads of assets and deleting by Rs.2,32,400/- being the value of clothings and kitchen items, there is no major change in the assessment. Expenditure during the check period: Sl.No. Details of Expenditure In the name of Amount in Rs. Source of Information/evidence Remarks, if any 1. Fees in school of son of V.Jayaraman and A2 from 95-96 to 03-04 Son of V.Jayaraman 51,730 A letter and statement of the Principal, Carmel Garden M.H.S.S. CBE 2. Fees in school of daughter of V.Jayaraman and A2 from 94-95 to 03-04 Daughter of V.Jayaraman 40,350 A letter and statement of the Principal, St. Joseph M.H.S.S. CBE 3. Contribution to World Vision (ngo) V.Jayaraman 29,550 A letter dated 08.06.2004 from Samuel Nirmal, Chief Financial Officer, World Vision, Chennai. 4. Fees in school of daughter of V.Jayaraman and A2 from 94-95 to 03-04 Daughter of V.Jayaraman 40,350 A letter and statement of the Principal, St. Joseph M.H.S.S. CBE 3. Contribution to World Vision (ngo) V.Jayaraman 29,550 A letter dated 08.06.2004 from Samuel Nirmal, Chief Financial Officer, World Vision, Chennai. 4. AMP Sanmar Life Insuran ce Policy No.10061701 Waheeda Jayaraman 1,898 A letter Head Operations, AMP Sanmar, Chennai. 5. Repayment of HDFC towards loan No.328544 V.Jayaraman 2,11,849 Letter From HDFC Rs.11,128 for the months of August, 1991 to March, 1992 and Rs.16,692 for the months of April, 1992 to March, 1993 are added taking into consideration the EMI of Rs.1,391/- since the statement of accounts of HDFC for the period could not be obtained. 6. Repayment of HDFC towards loan No.369921 V.Jayaraman 1,58,414 Letter from HDFC 7. Repayment of personal loan to Citibank V.Jayaraman 21,301 A letter dated 10.06.2004 form T.A.Sampath Kumar, Manager, Customer Care, Citibank, Chennai. 8. Donation to Nagapillayar temple, Kovaipudur V.Jayaraman 10,000 Receipt of the Temple Committee and the Statement of Secretary of the Temple Committee 9. LIC premia Policy No.763622377 763627906 762686557762693200 712867092 V.Jayaraman P.Velu Son of V. Jayaraman Daughter of V.Jayaraman 1,02,9842,66,665 47,584 30,567 49,550 Letter from A.O. LIC, Poidanur Branch, CBE with enclosures. Receipts seized from the house. 10. Cell phone Bill 98433-45605(BPL) V.Jayaraman 77,216 Letter dated 08.07.2005 received from BPL Cellular Limited, Avinashi Road, Coimbatore and 161 Cr.PC statement of Shri Anbuchezhian, Customer Support Manager, BPL 11. Cell Phone Bill for No.0422-3120203 of Reliance Inforcomm V.Jayaraman 6,562 Letter from Customer Care Centre, Reliance Inforcomm, Chennai. 12. BSNL Landline No.0422-26075 83 V.Jayaraman 72,750 Letter No. DE (V)CBE/Call Details/05-06/28/ dated 21.07.2005 of T.Radhakrishnan, D.E.(Vig), BSNL, Coimbatore. The details are available only for the period from 01.07.1997 to 29.03.2004These are including rentals. 13. Water charges of Q-52, Kovaipudur, CBE V.Jayaraman 3,660 Letter from Executive Officer, Kunimuthur Municipality, Coimbatore dated I19.07.2005 14. Property Tax of Q-52, Kovaipudur, Coimbatore between 04.11.93 to 01.09.2003 V.Jayaraman 2,832 Letter from Executive Officer, Kunimuthur Municipality/Coimbatore for the period between 04.11.93 and 1. and the documents seized from the house of V. Jayaraman on 2. for the period between 01.01.89 to 04.11.1993. An amount of Rs.1,526 was paid before 04.11.93 as per cash receipts seized from the house of V.Jayaraman on28.04.2004. 15. Electricity deposit, consumption and other charges for the house at Q-52, Kovaipudur. and the documents seized from the house of V. Jayaraman on 2. for the period between 01.01.89 to 04.11.1993. An amount of Rs.1,526 was paid before 04.11.93 as per cash receipts seized from the house of V.Jayaraman on28.04.2004. 15. Electricity deposit, consumption and other charges for the house at Q-52, Kovaipudur. V.Jayaraman 68,920 Letter dated 20.07.2005 from Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Kovaipudur, CBE 16. Electricity deposit, consumption and other charges for the house at V-61, Kovaipudur WaheedaJayaraman 4,988 Letter dated 20.07,2005 from Junior Engineer, 1st Grade, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Kovaipudur, CBE Though the name transfer for the electrical connection was done on 1. when CBl searched the house on 2. the accused was already residing there, which only proves that the electricity was being consumed by the accused even before the name transfer. The house was registered in the name of the accused on 10.09.2003. 17. Repayment towards Housing Loan from SBl, Race Course, CBE (V-61) Waheeda Jayaraman and P. Velu 60,150 Statement of account of Loan A/c No.01593/009780 of SBl, Race Course Br. Paid upto 29.03.2004 18. Income Tax paid in cash vide challan dated 27.03.0329.03.00 1996-97 1995-96 V.Jayaraman 8,2641,756 5,535 2,966 19. Payment towards Credit Card No.5431862000077397 and add on card No. 5431862430020751 V.Jayaraman & Waheeda Jayaraman 43,536 State of account from Standard Chartered Bank 20. Mediclaim Insurance Certificate No.712500 for the period Oct.98 to Sep.99 V.Jayaraman Waheeda Jayaraman & their children 4,085 Copy of the receipt seized from the house of the accused 21. Road Tax in respect of Maruti ZenTN-07-D-3666 Waheeda Jayaraman 800 Tax certificate of RTO, Coimbatore dated 04.04.2003 22. Property Tax for No.3, Bharathiyar Street, V.Marudhur, Villupuram. Waheeda Jayaraman 2,754 Letter from Villupuram Municipality 23. Domestic Expenditure of Shri.V.Jayaraman 6,30,825 24. Domestic Expenditure of Shri P.Velu 1,09,636 25. Expenditure on agriculture done by Shri P.Velu 1,14,900 26. Gift by Shri P.Velu to Shri.V.Jayaraman 30,000 27. Loan by Shri P.Velu to Shri V.Jayaraman 75,000 Total 23,49,577 62. The learned counsel in the written arguments had submitted that the household items which are shown in the assets and valued to a tune of Rs.6,84,880/- has to be excluded in view of deducting 1/3 towards domestic expenditure. In this regard, he would submit that under Ex.P.141, unverifiable expenditure such as kitchen, household items, clothing, etc. should be taken 1/3rd of the gross income. In this regard, he would submit that under Ex.P.141, unverifiable expenditure such as kitchen, household items, clothing, etc. should be taken 1/3rd of the gross income. When the gross income of A.1 is fixed at Rs.11,13,451/-, 1/3rd of his salary is Rs.3,71,150/-. Hence, having deducted 1/3rd towards domestic expenditure, a further addition of Rs.6,84,880/- towards household items and clothing, cannot be made. 63. A close perusal of Ex.P.141 indicates that if the household articles held by the public servant if verifiable, then the value of it should be taken into account. Only in case of unverifiable expenditures, such as water charges and electricity charges, 1/3rd of the gross income has to be excluded towards domestic expenditure. 64. The learned Special Public Prosecutor representing CBI would submit that the value of the household articles were collected by the prosecution either from the declaration of the accused himself or supported by bills for purchase of these articles. 1/3rd deduction from gross income includes not only electrical charges, water charge, but also money spent for the food and other basic needs. 65. In this case, the prosecution has shown Rs.6,30,825/- towards domestic expenditure for A.1 and A.2 separately and Rs.1,09,636/- for the domestic expenditure for A.3 separately, since he is living at Villupuram away from A.1 and A.2. Ex.P.141 is the communication issued by CBI, Delhi to all the Superintendent of Police, regarding the procedure for investigation in disproportionate asset case. According to this communication, unverifiable expenditure such as kitchen, household articles, clothing, etc. should be taken at 1/3rd of the gross salary as a last resort after attempting to quantifying the expenditure broadly under each of these heads of verification. 66. In this case, we find that out of 172 items shown as assets held at the end of check period excluding immovable properties, motor vehicle and valuable securities, most of the items are household articles and clothings. It also includes dry fruits, sweets, footwear and crackers. The prosecution has assessed the value either from bill or from the declaration made by the accused. Particularly items in serial Nos.67, 72, 125, 126, 128, 152, 157, 163 and 164 under the statement of assets will be covered under 1/3rd of the gross income deducted for domestic expenditures. The total value of these items comes around Rs.2,32,400/-. 67. The prosecution has assessed the value either from bill or from the declaration made by the accused. Particularly items in serial Nos.67, 72, 125, 126, 128, 152, 157, 163 and 164 under the statement of assets will be covered under 1/3rd of the gross income deducted for domestic expenditures. The total value of these items comes around Rs.2,32,400/-. 67. To sum up, on considering the elaborate arguments made by the appellants and the detailed written arguments submitted by them with the statements, this Court finds that except excluding Rs.2,50,000/- under the asset column, which being the value of Maruti Zen for which the ownership has not been proved by the prosecution and deleting a sum of Rs.2,32,400/- being the 1/3rd value of apparels to be inclusive under deduction towards domestic expenditure, this Court finds no other error or excess in the statement arrived at by the Trial Court. The asset held by these appellants is astronomically high and they cannot have any benefit of doubt regarding the disproportionality of assets jointly held by them. Therefore, the statement of assets possessed by the public servant of the family members during the check period will be as below: (a) Income of the three accused during the check period as given in Statement C : Rs.36,17,901/- (b) Expenditure during the check period as given in Statement D : Rs.23,49,577/- (c) Likely savings during the check period : Rs.12,68,324/- (d) Assets at the end of the check period as given in Statement B : Rs.53,93,941/- (e) Assets at the beginning of the check period as given in Statement A : Rs. 3,42,164/- (f) Assets acquired during the check period : Rs.50,51,767/- (g) Disporportionate Assets {f-c } : Rs.37,83,443/- 68. From the appreciation of evidence, the maximum amount A.1 and A.3 could have saved during the check period is only around Rs.13 lakhs. Whereas the value of the assets acquired by them is around Rs.37 lakhs. This disproportionality in their holdings is more than triple than the likelihood of their savings and almost equal to their known income. In such circumstances, it is obviously clear that these assets were acquired by the public servant A.1 for himself and in the names of A.2 and A.3 through unknown source of income. Hence, the charges as held proved by the Trial Court needs no interference. 69. In such circumstances, it is obviously clear that these assets were acquired by the public servant A.1 for himself and in the names of A.2 and A.3 through unknown source of income. Hence, the charges as held proved by the Trial Court needs no interference. 69. In the result, these Criminal Appeals are dismissed and the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18.10.2007 passed in C.C.No.5 of 2006 by the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai are confirmed. The Trial Court is directed to secure the appellants/accused and commit them to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence. The bail bonds if any executed by them shall stand cancelled. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed.