JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 13 (1) (e) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced for a term of one year’s simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,000 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month’s simple imprisonment; vide impugned judgment dated 19.12.1996 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti- Corruption Cases, Bhilwara in case No.50/1991. 2. Being aggrieved of the conviction and sentences awarded to him, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. 3. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted herein below :- The appellant herein was apprehended on 12.10.1988 while accepting illegal gratification to the tune of Rs.50/- from the complainant Shyam Sunder, whereupon a Case No.97/88 was registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau. In furtherance of this trap of the appellant, a search of his rented house at Sindhunagar, Bhilwara was undertaken on 12.10.1988 while complying with the provisions of Section 165 Cr.P.C. During the course of this search, certain documents pertaining to the assets acquired by the appellant were recovered. The appellant had started working in the Rajasthan Financial Corporation on a stiffened basis in the year 1980. In June 1982, he was appointed as a Junior Assistant. The appellant was having no official source of income except that of his salary. The culmination of the search proceedings resulted into a finding that the appellant had amassed property/assets to the tune of Rs.86,563/-. Taking the check period to be between October, 1980 to October, 1988, the Investigating Officer reached to a conclusion that the accused had net savings of Rs.28,700/- and thus, he had acquired assets worth of Rs.57,863/-, which were disproportionate to his known source of income. With these findings, an FIR No.102/1989 (Ex.P/4) was registered against the appellant and after conclusion of investigation thereof, a charge sheet came to be filed against him in the Court of Anti-Corruption Bureau, Bhilwara for the offences under Section 13 (1) (e) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The trial court framed charge against the accused for the said offences. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 50 documents to prove its case. The trial court framed charge against the accused for the said offences. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 50 documents to prove its case. Upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and when confronted with the prosecution allegations, the accused denied the same and claimed to be innocent. 6 witnesses were examined in defence. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court proceeded to admit the case set up by the prosecution in its evidence, discarded that of the defence and convicted and sentenced the appellant as above by the impugned judgment dated 19.12.1996 which is assailed in this appeal. 5. Shri P.N. Mohanani, learned counsel representing the appellant submitted that as no preliminary inquiry was conducted by the Investigating Officer before registering the FIR. So the entire prosecution case is vitiated and the impugned judgment deserves to be struck down on this ground alone. He urged that non-holding of the preliminary inquiry is an incurable defect and as such, the proceedings have to be declared vitiated. Shri Mohanani further submitted that the Investigating Officer acted in an absolutely arbitrary manner while assessing the assets acquired by the accused. He urged that the Scooter worth Rs.12,000/- was received by the accused by way of settlement in lieu of a joint family house situated at Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer. A sum of Rs.9,000/- was received by him as rent from the house at Ajmer. He further pointed out that the Investigating Officer Shri Gopal Krishan Parihar (PW-4), admitted that there was a calculation error of Rs.8,550/- while assessing the assets of the appellant. Shri Mohanani, the Investigating Officer, as well as the trial court omitted to appropriately consider the savings made by the appellant's from his known source of income. The appellant made personal savings of Rs.27,985/- from October 1982 to June 1985, till he was unmarried when the saving was to the tune of 70-75% of the salary earned by him. After his marriage, i.e. from July 1985 till September 1985, the appellant saved a total amount of Rs.60,985/- and thus the assets acquired match with the savings of the appellant. As per Shri Mohanani, the learned trial court had committed an error in admitting the photostat copies of the property documents filed on record by the prosecution. As regards to the immovable property, viz. As per Shri Mohanani, the learned trial court had committed an error in admitting the photostat copies of the property documents filed on record by the prosecution. As regards to the immovable property, viz. the Plot No.182 C located at the Subhash Nagar, Bhilwara, Shri Mohanani's submission was that UIT allotted this plot to Shahabuddin (PW-5), who sold the same to Krishna Gopal (PW-7) who as per the prosecution, sold the same to the appellant. His contention was that neither possession was given to the appellant nor any sale deed was executed regarding this plot in favour of the appellant and as such, the amount of purchase of this plot could not have been clubbed with the appellant's assets. He further submitted that Smt. Renu (DW-6), being the sister-in-law of the accused-appellant, testified that the plot was purchased for her own use and that she had given a cash amount of Rs.36,500 to the appellant, who in turn, gave this amount to Shahabuddin for purchasing the plot. Thus, the amount of Rs.41,500/- was wrongly clubbed in the assets of the accused-appellant. Shri Mohnani further submitted that a liberal view is required to be taken while assessing the assets of the accused-appellant and as per him, if a liberal/rational view is taken, manifestly, the accused-appellant cannot be held guilty of having acquired assets disproportionate to his known source of income. On these grounds, Shri Mohanani implored the Court to accept the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the accused-appellant of the charge. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel Shri Mohnani. He urged that the theory put forth by the defence that the plot located at Radha Krishna colony was sold by Shahabuddin to Smt. Renu, sister-in-law of the accused-appellant, is totally fictitious. In this regard, learned Public Prosecutor drew the Court's attention towards the evidence of Krishna Gopal (PW-7) and urged that the witness clearly deposed that he had purchased the plot in question from Shahabuddin, in whose favour the allotment was made by the UIT, Bhilwara. He further deposed that he sold the said plot to Vazir Sherwaramani (the accused herein) for a sum of Rs.41,500/-. In lieu of this sale, Shahabuddin executed a power of attorney, in favour of the appellant in which Krishna Gopal stood as a witness. He further deposed that he sold the said plot to Vazir Sherwaramani (the accused herein) for a sum of Rs.41,500/-. In lieu of this sale, Shahabuddin executed a power of attorney, in favour of the appellant in which Krishna Gopal stood as a witness. The witness further stated that power of attorney was registered and accused gave him a sum of Rs.41,500/-, where after all the documents were handed over to the accused. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that not even a single question was put to Krishna Gopal (PW-7) regarding his assertion in examination-in-chief, wherein he stated that the plot was purchased by the accused-appellant herein for a consideration of Rs.41,500/-. The learned Public Prosecutor, further submitted that the prosecution case in this regard is also substantiated from the power of attorney (Ex.P/17) executed by Shahabuddin in favour of the accused-appellant herein on 15.09.1988. He contended that the defence has tried to portray that this plot was purchased by Smt. Renu (DW-6), who gave the consideration amount to the tune of Rs.36,500/- to the accused in lieu of buying the plot. From the evidence of the appellant herein (DW-1) and Smt. Renu (DW-6), the learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that Smt. Renu claimed that she gave the amount towards the purchase of the plot to her brother-in-law i.e. the accused-appellant herein in the year 1988. However, referring to the statement of Krishna Gopal (PW-7), learned Public prosecutor has submitted that the amount which Smt. Renu claimed that she gave to the accused-appellant does not tally with the amount stated by Shri Krishna Gopal towards the sale of the plot to the appellant. Furthermore, referring to the income tax return of Smt. Renu in which this amount was shown, learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that an affidavit of Smt. Renu (Ex.D/3) regarding having given the amount which she had given for purchase of the plot to the accused-appellant was executed only in the Year 1993. Regarding the agreement to sale (Ex.P/48), the contention of learned Public Prosecutor was that ex-facie, the power of attorney is an agreement/legal/authorised document, apart from the fact that it is a photostat copy, which is not admissible in the court as evidence for any purpose whatsoever. Regarding the agreement to sale (Ex.P/48), the contention of learned Public Prosecutor was that ex-facie, the power of attorney is an agreement/legal/authorised document, apart from the fact that it is a photostat copy, which is not admissible in the court as evidence for any purpose whatsoever. Learned Public Prosecutor, while drawing the Court's attention towards the statement of the accused-appellant filed along with explanation (Ex.D/1) pointed out that the total salary earned by the appellant during the period between 1980 to 1988 was Rs.69,842/-. He got a bonus of Rs.13,055/- and thus, as per the learned Public Prosecutor, the appellant had no other source of income so as to buy the properties which he acquired during the check period. He contended that the trial court's finding regarding the appellant having acquired assets disproportionate to his known source of income are unimpeachable. Learned Public Prosecutor further pointed out from the evidence of the Investigating Officer Shri Gopal Krishna Parihar (PW-4), that a preliminary inquiry was made and thereafter, the FIR for disproportionate assets (Ex.P/4) was registered. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that not a single question was put to the Investigating Officer regarding the aspect of preliminary inquiry having been conducted before registration of the FIR. Thus, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the contention of Shri Mohanani's that the proceedings are vitiated because the FIR was registered without making a preliminary inquiry is totally untenable. On these grounds, learned Public Prosecutor implored the Court to affirm the impugned judgment and dismiss the appeal. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at Bar and have gone through the impugned judgment and the material available on record. 8. The prosecution proved the fact that the accused acquired the following properties during the check period: 1. Plot No.182-C for a consideration of Rs.41,500/-; 2. Colour Television Videocon for a sum of Rs.10,000/-; 3. A scooter RNV-4996 for a sum of Rs.13,405/-. 9. In addition thereto, the accused was found in possession of sundry white goods, the total value whereof came to be Rs.86,563/-. As against this, the known source of income available to the accused, which primarily was his salary, was around Rs.28,700/- after deducting the expenditure. A scooter RNV-4996 for a sum of Rs.13,405/-. 9. In addition thereto, the accused was found in possession of sundry white goods, the total value whereof came to be Rs.86,563/-. As against this, the known source of income available to the accused, which primarily was his salary, was around Rs.28,700/- after deducting the expenditure. It may be stated here that for establishing the fact that the accused acquired assets disproportionate to his known source of income, the prosecution would have to prove by proper evidence the income of the accused during the check period and the total value of the assets acquired by him. Shri Gopal Krishna Parihar, the Dy.S.P. (PW-4), who registered the FIR, exhibited various salary statements of the accused, which have been proved cumulatively as Ex.P/35 & Ex.P/36. 10. The salary details of the accused are mentioned in the FIR (Ex.P/4) and the prosecution sanction (Ex.P/50), as per which, the accused earned salary/stipend to the tune of Rs.83,000/- during the check period; of which, 33% was taken to be the savings which came out to be Rs.27,390/-. It may be reiterated that Krishna Gopal (PW-7) categorically stated that the accused paid the sum of Rs.41,500/- to him for buying the plot at Bhilwara and no significant cross examination was made from Krishna Gopal on this aspect. The stand of the accused that he got a sum of Rs.9,000/- as rental income and that a sum of Rs.38,125/- was received by him by way of gifts etc. in the marriage and at the time of the birth of his daughter was accepted by the prosecution. The total gross value of assets of accused till the date of filing of the FIR came to be worth Rs.1,73,121/-. As per the FIR, the entire assessment was made by the Investigating Officer and finally the prosecution sanction (Ex.P/50) came to be issued with a conclusion that the accused acquired assets worth Rs.57,863/- which were in excess of his known source of income. A major percentage of this excess value was comprised of the plot, which, as per the prosecution, the accused had purchased from Krishna Gopal (PW-7). The prosecution duly proved by the evidence of Krishna Gopal (PW-7) that the plot was unquestionably sold to the accused-appellant for a consideration of Rs.41,500/-. A major percentage of this excess value was comprised of the plot, which, as per the prosecution, the accused had purchased from Krishna Gopal (PW-7). The prosecution duly proved by the evidence of Krishna Gopal (PW-7) that the plot was unquestionably sold to the accused-appellant for a consideration of Rs.41,500/-. The accused took a defence that this property was, as a matter of fact, procured by him for his sister-in-law Smt. Renu (DW-6). This fact was sought to be established from the evidence of Smt. Renu (DW-6) and from her income tax return. However, I find that the income tax return came to be submitted as a stand alone instance and that too much after the FIR had been registered. There being no reason to discard the testimony of Krishna Gopal (PW-7) and the documents (EX.P/17) establishing the fact that the accused appellant has acquired the said plot, this court has no hesitation in holding that the trial court was perfectly justified in concluding that the accused appellant himself purchased the plot for an amount, which was well beyond his known source of income i.e. to say illegally derived money. Thus, the prosecution duly established the fact that the assets of the accused were well in excess of his known source of income and his act tantamounted to acquisition of disproportionate assets within the meaning of Section 13 (1) (e) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The defence as produced by the accused primarily comprises the statement of Smt. Renu (DW-6), which, in my opinion, is not tenable and is worthy of reliance. Smt. Renu is a resident of Ajmer and the plot in question was purchased at Bhilwara where the appellant was posted. As such, there was no occasion for Smt. Renu to have gone out of the way to purchase the plot at Bhilwara. Therefore, the defence theory regarding the plot at Bhilwara having been acquired by Smt. Renu is not substantiated and is a totally fictional plea put forth by the defence at a belated stage. There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment dated 19.12.1996 warranting interference therein. As an upshot of above discussion, I find no merit in this appeal, which is hereby rejected. The accused is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment dated 19.12.1996 warranting interference therein. As an upshot of above discussion, I find no merit in this appeal, which is hereby rejected. The accused is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. He shall be taken back into custody to serve out the remaining sentence awarded to him by the trial court. Record of the trial court be returned forthwith.