JUDGMENT : K. SURENDER, J. 1. This criminal appeal is filed by the appellant, aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.10.2009 in C.C. No. 14 of 2003, passed by the Additional Special Learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant/accused served as the Assistant Director of Agriculture from 30.4.1991 to 31.5.1999. On credible information that the appellant, while working in various capacities in the Agricultural Department and as Assistant Director of Agriculture, had acquired substantial assets in his name and the names of his dependents, a case was registered under Cr. No. 5/ACB-HR/97 on 12.3.1997. The case was registered under sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on the authorization of the Additional Director, ACB, Hyderabad, vide proceedings no. 45/RCH/HMR/97 dated 22.3.1997, and an investigation was initiated. 3. During the investigation, after obtaining search warrants from the Hon’ble Court on 23.3.1997, searches were simultaneously conducted at the appellant’s residential premises at no. 4-1-124, Attapur village, Ranga Reddy District, at his house located at no. 3-5- 199/A/7, Harivihar Colony, Narayanguda, and at his office situated in Nalgonda. Furthermore, the appellant's residential house was also searched under section 165 of CrPC, during which incriminating documents relating to assets, income, and expenditure were seized. During the course of the investigation, a locker bearing no. 19, Indian Bank, main branch, Koti, was also found, and several incriminating documents were seized. Another locker, locker no. 41, at Indian Bank, main branch, Koti, was searched on 26.3.1997, and gold and jewellery worth Rs 27,700 were found and inventoried. 4. For the purpose of the investigation, the check period was set from 1.2.1968 (the date the appellant entered government service) to 23.3.1997 (the date of searches). 5. The incriminating material/documents seized during the searches revealed that the appellant was in possession of assets amounting to Rs 28,20,569.28 as of the terminal date of the check period. 4. For the purpose of the investigation, the check period was set from 1.2.1968 (the date the appellant entered government service) to 23.3.1997 (the date of searches). 5. The incriminating material/documents seized during the searches revealed that the appellant was in possession of assets amounting to Rs 28,20,569.28 as of the terminal date of the check period. The total income of the appellant during the check period was calculated to be Rs 19,45,111, and his expenditure was calculated to be Rs 14,75,546.70 as of the terminal date of the check period. The likely savings of the appellant as of the terminal date of the check period were calculated to be Rs 4,69,565.00 (total income of Rs19,45,111.00 - total expenditure of Rs 14,75,546.70). 6. Thus, the appellant was found to be in possession of disproportionate assets amounting to Rs 23,51,004 (total assets of Rs 28,20,569.28 - total savings of Rs 4,69,565.00), for which the appellant could not provide satisfactory accounts. 7. Since the appellant retired from service on 31.5.1999, no sanction orders were required from the competent authority to prosecute the appellant. 8. After the conclusion of the investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for offences under sections 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 9. The learned Special Learned Special Judge, having considered the evidence on record, arrived at the conclusion that the total income of the appellant was Rs.17,09,611.80 and the expenditure was Rs.11,32,434.80. The likely savings of the appellant were thus found to be Rs.5,77,177.00 (Rs.17,09,611.80 - Rs.11,32,434.80). Since the total assets were valued at Rs.25,82,852.28, the disproportionate amount was arrived at Rs.20,05,675.28 (Rs.25,82,852.28 - Rs.5,77,177.00). Accordingly, the Learned Special Judge convicted the appellant, as he was found to be in possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.20,05,675.28. ASSETS: 10. The following disputed items are discussed below: Item No. 2: House Bearing No. 4-1-124, situated at Attapur: According to the prosecution, the said house stands in the name of Smt. Taramma, wife of the appellant, and it was constructed by the appellant after dismantling the old building. PW31, the Deputy Executive Engineer, evaluated the cost of construction at Rs. 1,13,000 and deposed that the period of construction was reported to be the year 1981. He adopted the rates from the Standard Schedule of Rates (SSR) of the Roads and Buildings Department for the year 1980–81. PW31, the Deputy Executive Engineer, evaluated the cost of construction at Rs. 1,13,000 and deposed that the period of construction was reported to be the year 1981. He adopted the rates from the Standard Schedule of Rates (SSR) of the Roads and Buildings Department for the year 1980–81. Exhibits P41 and P42 are the reports submitted by him. The prosecution has added an amount of Rs. 1,13,000 under this item. 11. The learned Special Judge acknowledged that the wife of the appellant had inherited the house from her father under the will dated 8.12.1975. Relying on the cross-examination of PW31, the learned Special Judge noted that PW31 denied the suggestions put to him that the house was an old structure and was only renovated by the appellant’s father-in-law. The learned Special Judge also relied on ExP42, a letter addressed by PW31 to the Inspector, and concluded that the details mentioned by PW31 in his report clearly indicated that the structure was not an old building, but a completely new construction undertaken by the appellant after demolishing the earlier one. Based on this, the learned Special Judge held that Item No. 2 was a new building and included the cost of construction of Rs. 1,13,000 as part of the appellant’s assets. 12. The appellant, however, argued that the house cannot be tagged to his assets. He contended that the house belonged to his father-in- law and was inherited by his wife through a will dated 8.12.1975, marked as ExP91. Further, it was pointed out that PW31 did not mention the period of construction in his evidence before the court, and the Investigating Officer/PW39 did not furnish any such date to PW31 either. There is no basis for PW31 adopting the SSR of 1980–81. Though PW39 stated that the house was constructed in the name of the appellant’s wife after dismantling the old house, there is no evidence on record to support that claim. 13. It is admitted by PW39 that the house was inherited by the appellant’s wife from her father. The prosecution’s case is that the appellant dismantled the existing structure and constructed a new house. Accordingly, PW31 evaluated the building using the SSR for the year 1980–81, based on the assumption that construction took place in that year. 13. It is admitted by PW39 that the house was inherited by the appellant’s wife from her father. The prosecution’s case is that the appellant dismantled the existing structure and constructed a new house. Accordingly, PW31 evaluated the building using the SSR for the year 1980–81, based on the assumption that construction took place in that year. Yet, the prosecution has not produced any evidence to show that the appellant indeed undertook the construction or that the building was constructed in 1980. There is nothing on record to explain why PW31 used the SSR for that specific year. In his chief examination, PW31 stated that the year of construction was reported to be 1981, but in his cross-examination, he admitted that no such date was furnished to him. Even in ExP42, PW31’s letter, it is mentioned that the year of construction of the building is reported to be 1980–81. To worsen the matter, PW35, in his cross-examination, stated that his inquiries revealed that the house bearing No. 4-1-124 was constructed in 1988. 14. Therefore, the valuation of the building at Rs. 1,13,000, based on the SSR of 1980–81, cannot be considered reliable. If the SSR of a particular year is used for valuation, the prosecution must establish that construction occurred during that period. Without such proof, relying on an arbitrary SSR undermines the evidentiary value of the report. 15. Moreover, even the fact of construction by the appellant has not been established by the prosecution. PW39, in his cross-examination, admitted that there was no evidence to show that the appellant demolished the old house and constructed a new one, apart from the fact that the appellant paid tax. Even if it is presumed for the sake of argument that the appellant did construct the building, unless it is proved that the construction took place in the year 1980, the use of the SSR of that year for valuation cannot be justified. Applying the wrong year’s SSR can skew the valuation and cannot be the basis for attributing the value to the appellant’s assets. Hence, the value of this item, i.e., Rs. 1,13,000, as assessed by the learned Special Judge, is excluded from consideration. 16. Item No. 4: Maruti Car bearing No. AP 9 F 9600: According to PW39, IO, the appellant purchased this vehicle in the name of his wife. Hence, the value of this item, i.e., Rs. 1,13,000, as assessed by the learned Special Judge, is excluded from consideration. 16. Item No. 4: Maruti Car bearing No. AP 9 F 9600: According to PW39, IO, the appellant purchased this vehicle in the name of his wife. The registration of the car was completed on 7.6.1994 in the name of Smt. G. Tara (wife of the appellant), and an amount of Rs. 8,750 was paid towards life tax. The vehicle was purchased under a Hire Purchase Agreement from M/s. Sunita Finance Corporation, from whom a loan of Rs. 1,57,261 was obtained. Consequently, an amount of Rs. 1,68,740 was added to the assets of the appellant. 17. The appellant contended that the car, valued at Rs. 1,68,740, is registered in his wife’s name and was purchased by her under a Hire Purchase Agreement from M/s. Sunita Finance Corporation. It was argued that she had been making the monthly payments towards the vehicle from her agricultural income and that there is no evidence to suggest that the appellant paid or contributed any amount towards the purchase of the car. 18. The learned Special Judge observed that there is no dispute regarding the cost of the vehicle. It was admitted that the car was purchased in the name of the appellant’s wife and that she had inherited property from her father, which provided her with an independent source of income. The learned Special Judge also noted that the counsel for the appellant submitted that if the income of the appellant’s wife is treated as the income of the appellant, the item may be tagged to him. On this basis, the learned Special Judge tagged the item to the appellant, stating that the aspect of income would be considered in detail while assessing the income of the appellant. 19. However, while dealing with Item No. 3 under the head of income, which concerns the loan from Sunita Finance Corporation amounting to Rs. 80,000, the learned Special Judge held that since it had already been considered and treated that the car purchased in the name of the appellant’s wife was an asset of the appellant, the claim that this amount of Rs. 80,000 was borrowed by the wife of the appellant could not be accepted. 20. 80,000, the learned Special Judge held that since it had already been considered and treated that the car purchased in the name of the appellant’s wife was an asset of the appellant, the claim that this amount of Rs. 80,000 was borrowed by the wife of the appellant could not be accepted. 20. PW5, an officer from the Road Transport Authority, confirmed that according to the registration particulars of the vehicle, the car stands in the name of G. Tara, wife of the appellant. Further, PW37 stated that the Maruti car was in the name of the appellant’s wife and that she had obtained a loan to purchase the said vehicle. PW39, during cross-examination, admitted that there exists a loan account in the name of the appellant’s wife with Sunita Finance Corporation. 21. The evidence clearly establishes that the car was purchased in the name of the appellant’s wife, who had a loan account with Sunita Finance Corporation. It is also admitted by PW39 that the wife of the appellant disposed of approximately 15 acres of land along with her sister during the relevant period. 22. Since the income of the wife of the appellant will be added to the income of the appellant, the assets of the wife of the appellant will also be added to the assets of the appellant. Hence, the finding of the learned Special Judge under this item needs no interference. 23. Item No. 5 – Bajaj Chetak Scooter bearing No. AP 9L 1529: The prosecution’s case is that the said vehicle is registered in the name of the appellant’s son. As per ExP6, which is a letter disclosing the registration particulars, the vehicle was registered on 24.2.1996. A life tax of Rs. 1,910 and a registration fee of Rs. 45 were paid, and the cost of the vehicle, amounting to Rs. 23,310, was added to the appellant’s assets. 24. The learned Special Judge, relying upon the evidence of PW5, an officer from the RTA, PW39, the Investigating Officer, and ExP6, held that the vehicle was purchased by the appellant in the name of his son and accordingly added Rs. 23,310 to the appellant’s assets. 25. The appellant contended that the scooter, which stands in the name of his son, was purchased by his wife for their son. 23,310 to the appellant’s assets. 25. The appellant contended that the scooter, which stands in the name of his son, was purchased by his wife for their son. It was argued that there was no evidence to show that the appellant made any payment towards this purchase and, therefore, the cost should not have been attributed to his assets. 26. PW5 deposed that ExP6 furnished the registration particulars and that the scooter stands registered in the name of the appellant’s son. PW39, in his cross-examination, admitted that there is no direct evidence showing that the appellant paid the sale consideration for the purchase of the scooter. 27. Nevertheless, it is clear that the appellant’s son was dependent on him at the relevant time. Even if the appellant’s claim is that the vehicle was purchased by his wife for their son, the same will be tagged to the assets of the appellant in light of the income of the wife being added to the income of the appellant. Thus, the finding of the learned Special Judge under this item needs no interference. 28. Item No. 9 – Cost of Household Articles: According to the prosecution, while conducting the search, an inventory of household articles was taken. During the search, the appellant and his family members were present, and they gave the values of the articles along with the year of acquisition. As per the said value, the cost of household articles was arrived at Rs 1,47,030, vide ExP47, and the same is added under this item to the assets of the appellant. 29. It is the contention of the appellant that the entire household articles do not belong to him, since his sister-in-law, i.e., DW19, was also residing in the said house. According to the appellant, out of Rs 1,47,030, articles worth Rs 54,000 belong to him. He also states that the value of the clothes, i.e., an amount of Rs 18,350, was included in the household articles. The appellant has also contended that the ExP47 inventory proceedings were written at the office of ACB under their dictation. 30. The learned Special Judge stated that there is no whisper, either in the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant or in the written arguments, as to which articles from the list belong to the sister-in- law. The appellant has also contended that the ExP47 inventory proceedings were written at the office of ACB under their dictation. 30. The learned Special Judge stated that there is no whisper, either in the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant or in the written arguments, as to which articles from the list belong to the sister-in- law. A bald statement was made stating that only an amount of Rs 54,000 has to be considered. The learned Special Judge stated that if the appellant’s contention is that the household articles which do not belong to him are also included, he must be in a position to identify which articles belong to him and which ones belong to the sister-in-law. 31. The learned Special Judge also stated that, as per the evidence of the mediator, PW34, the sister-in-law of the appellant and her son have stated that no movables, either valuable or non-valuable, belonging to them are in the possession or custody of the appellant. Thus, the learned Special Judge added an amount of Rs 1,47,030/-. 32. ExP47 is the inventory report and ExP48 is the search list. PW34 stated that the year of acquisition of the articles found in the house and the price of the articles were furnished by the appellant, his wife, daughter, and son. He noted down the year of acquisition and the price against each article. 33. The appellant’s contention that the entire household articles do not belong to him, since his sister-in-law, i.e., DW19, was also residing in the said house, cannot be believed. It is DW19’s evidence that she is residing in the Attapur house (which is Item No. 2 in the assets) and that the appellant is residing in the house at Narayanguda (which is Item No. 1 in the assets). Even according to PW39, DW19 is living in the house at Attapur village. ExP47 was conducted at the house in Narayanguda (which is Item No. 1); hence, it cannot be accepted that DW19’s movables were also present in the appellant’s house at Narayanguda. 34. Further, if the appellant’s contention is that the household articles which do not belong to him are also included, he must be in a position to say which articles belong to him and which from the list belong to the sister-in-law. 35. 34. Further, if the appellant’s contention is that the household articles which do not belong to him are also included, he must be in a position to say which articles belong to him and which from the list belong to the sister-in-law. 35. Since the appellant has not filed any evidence to show which articles belong to him and which belong to the sister-in-law and since, in any case, the sister-in-law was not residing in the appellant’s house at Narayanguda—the appellant’s contention cannot be believed. 36. According to the prosecution, as per ExP47, the cost of household articles was arrived at Rs 1,47,030. However, the value is incorrect, and the cost of household articles as per ExP47 actually comes to Rs 1,14,980. This value also excludes the cost of clothing expenditure, as PW39 and PW42, the then Deputy Director of Accounts, who furnished ExP61 showing the household expenditure of the appellant, have deposed that the clothing expenditure of the appellant is included in ExP61. Hence, the same is excluded under ExP47. Thus, for the reasons discussed above, the amount of Rs 1,47,030, as assessed by the learned Special Judge, is incorrect, and the correct amount of Rs 1,14,980 is added. 37. Item No. 10 – Gold and Silver Ornaments: According to the prosecution, during the house search conducted at the appellant’s residence, gold and silver articles were found. It was stated that the wife of the appellant and other family members provided the details of these articles. After excluding the value of items that were stated to be gifts, the remaining gold and silver articles were valued at Rs. 44,600, and the prosecution added the same to the assets of the appellant. 38. The appellant’s contention is that he did not purchase any gold or silver ornaments, and that if any such ornaments were found, they constituted the stridhan property of his wife. It was argued that these items belonged to her and were not acquired by the appellant. 39. The learned Special Learned Special Judge, however, noted that according to the defence, as per ExP47, the value of the gold ornaments came to Rs. 14,900. The silver ornaments found were not valued on the ground that they belonged to the daughter of the appellant’s co-brother. 39. The learned Special Learned Special Judge, however, noted that according to the defence, as per ExP47, the value of the gold ornaments came to Rs. 14,900. The silver ornaments found were not valued on the ground that they belonged to the daughter of the appellant’s co-brother. The learned Special Judge observed that PW34 had recorded the year of acquisition and price for each of the gold and silver ornaments found, and that this information regarding the year and cost was furnished by the appellant and his wife themselves. The learned Special Judge referred to ExP47, which contains a detailed list of the gold and silver articles, and noted that against Item No. 1—gold bangles (2 in number)—it was specifically mentioned that they were given by the father-in-law of the appellant. Similarly, the silver articles were noted to belong to the daughter of the appellant’s co-brother. 40. The learned Special Learned Special Judge also referred to the will (ExP91), which stated that the gold and silver ornaments, articles, and vessels of the family were bequeathed in favour of the appellant’s mother-in-law. In paragraph 6 at page 5 of the will, it was mentioned that “all my heirs, survivors and legal representatives shall own all ornaments, big or small…”. While the learned Special Judge acknowledged that the appellant’s wife did own some gold ornaments, he pointed out that there was no specific evidence on record identifying which of the gold items found during the search were part of that ownership. 41. The learned Special Learned Special Judge further held that the burden lies on the appellant to establish that the source of acquisition of the ornaments was independent and not from known sources of income. It was noted that if the appellant disputed the valuation or inclusion of these gold items, it was for him to produce evidence to contradict the values and ownership as recorded in ExP47. Accordingly, the learned Special Judge excluded only Item No. 1 (gold bangles), and added the remaining value of Rs. 14,900 to the assets of the appellant. 42. PW34 deposed that the gold and silver ornaments found during the search were listed and recorded in ExP47. Accordingly, the learned Special Judge excluded only Item No. 1 (gold bangles), and added the remaining value of Rs. 14,900 to the assets of the appellant. 42. PW34 deposed that the gold and silver ornaments found during the search were listed and recorded in ExP47. Although PW39, during cross-examination, admitted that no records were produced to show that the appellant or his wife had purchased the gold and silver articles, it is true that in ExP47, the years of acquisition are mentioned alongside certain gold items. These entries indicate the likely years of purchase. It would not have been possible to provide such information if the items were received as stridhan, and had not been acquired by purchase. Moreover, if these ornaments were indeed stridhan, such a claim should have been specifically mentioned in ExP47, just as it was done next to Item No. 1, where it is clearly stated that the gold bangles were gifted by the father-in-law. 43. Further, PW34 denied that any information was provided during the search to indicate that the gold ornaments were stridhan property. PW39 also denied that Item No. 10 constitutes stridhan property of the appellant’s wife. It was also denied by PW34 that any of the gifted articles were recorded as purchased in ExP47. A review of ExP47 confirms that for several gold items, years and values are mentioned. 44. Moreover, Item No. 5 should also be excluded from the valuation. First, there is no year of acquisition mentioned next to it, and second, the description next to it is incomplete. The entry begins with the phrase, “stated to be belonged to…”, and does not specify the owner or context, leaving the nature of that item unclear. Since the provenance of Item No. 5 remains ambiguous, this particular amount should be excluded. 45. Therefore, from the amount of Rs. 14,900, a deduction of Rs. 1,500 (towards Item No. 5) is warranted. Thus, for the reasons discussed above, the amount of Rs 14,900, as assessed by the learned Special Judge, is incorrect, and the correct amount of Rs 13,400 is added. 46. Item No. 11 – Cash of Rs 64,560: According to the prosecution, during the course of the house search, a total of Rs 64,560 in cash was found, and the particulars of this recovery are recorded in ExP47, the inventory list. The prosecution added Rs 64,560 under this item. 47. 46. Item No. 11 – Cash of Rs 64,560: According to the prosecution, during the course of the house search, a total of Rs 64,560 in cash was found, and the particulars of this recovery are recorded in ExP47, the inventory list. The prosecution added Rs 64,560 under this item. 47. The appellant contended that this cash belonged exclusively to his wife, who is a resourceful individual with independent income. It was further argued that the wife had sold property that she inherited from her father and had engaged in land dealings, and therefore, the cash recovered should be treated as her personal asset and not be added to the assets of the appellant. 48. The learned Special Judge took note of the appellant’s submission and remarked that if the income of the appellant’s wife was to be considered during the assessment, then this cash amount might be treated as one of the appellant’s assets. Accordingly, the learned Special Judge added the amount to the appellant’s assets, stating that the contention would be examined during the income discussion part of the judgment. 49. PW35 deposed that the cash was found in the master bedroom’s cupboard—Rs 64,500 in a velvet handbag—and some additional amount in an almirah, totalling Rs 64,560. As per ExP47, it is clear that the bulk of the cash, around Rs 64,500, was found inside the velvet handbag. 50. Although PW39, during cross-examination, denied that the cash belonged to the wife of the appellant, it is significant to note that he admitted the wife had independent income and had disposed of approximately 15 acres of land, which she had inherited from her father and jointly owned with her sister during the check period. 51. Nevertheless, even if the cash is claimed to belong to the appellant’s wife, since the income of the wife will, in any case, be added to the income of the appellant, this asset should also be added to the assets of the appellant. 52. Moreover, the prosecution has failed to include the value of additional amounts found in the appellant’s house under this item: • Rs 863 found in the almirah located in the master bedroom. • Rs 3,720 found in the wallet of the appellant. • Rs 700 found in the wallet of the appellant’s son. • Rs 210 found in the purse of the appellant’s daughter. 53. • Rs 3,720 found in the wallet of the appellant. • Rs 700 found in the wallet of the appellant’s son. • Rs 210 found in the purse of the appellant’s daughter. 53. The above-mentioned amounts, totalling Rs 5,493, are also included under this amount. Thus, for the reasons discussed above, the amount of Rs 64,560, as assessed by the learned Special Judge, is incorrect, and the correct amount of Rs 70,053 (Rs 64,560 + Rs 5,493) is added. 54. Item No. 12 – Loans and Advances worth Rs 31,976: The prosecution’s case is that during the course of the house search, a long notebook in the handwriting of the appellant was found, recording the salaries of the farm servants. According to this notebook, the appellant had advanced loans totalling Rs 31,976 to various individuals. The same book also contains entries of various expenditures incurred on farm servants. This notebook was marked as Ex.P82. 55. The appellant contends that this amount of Rs 31,976 was arbitrarily added to the value of his assets based solely on entries in ExP82, which was a book seized from his house. It was argued that none of the entries in ExP82 were in the handwriting of the appellant, and that no independent proof was produced to substantiate the claim that the appellant had actually advanced these loans. 56. The learned Special Judge, however, held that as per the entries in the long notebook, which was stated to be in the handwriting of the appellant, the appellant had advanced loans to various individuals and incurred expenses related to the salaries and needs of farm servants, with the total amounting to Rs 31,976. The learned Special Judge further noted that since the book was recovered from the house of the appellant, it was incumbent upon him to explain who the author of the contents was, if it was not him. 57. ExP82 is a long notebook seized from the house of the appellant. It contains information about the loans advanced by the appellant totalling Rs 31,976 to various individuals. The same book also contains entries of various expenditures incurred on farm servants. Once the appellant claims that he had agricultural income, the expenditure incurred on farm servants is inevitable. 57. ExP82 is a long notebook seized from the house of the appellant. It contains information about the loans advanced by the appellant totalling Rs 31,976 to various individuals. The same book also contains entries of various expenditures incurred on farm servants. Once the appellant claims that he had agricultural income, the expenditure incurred on farm servants is inevitable. Since this court has considered the income claimed by the appellant on the basis of both the annual property statements filed by the appellant, which are marked as Exs P113 to P120, and the fact that there was suppression of a made-up file at Serial No. 21 of the list of documents—which consisted of receipts and bills relating to the sale of paddy and vegetables, bills issued by Adarsh Farmer Cooperative Society, AP State Seed Development Corporation, and the Agricultural Market Committee, Hyderabad, etc.—as admitted by PWs 37 and 39, the entries in ExP82 have to be accepted in their entirety. 58. The failure to rely on the entries in the document would contradict the claim of the appellant that he was having agricultural income, as mentioned in Exs P113 to P120. Thus, the finding of the learned Special Judge under this item needs no interference. 59. Item No. 13 – Stamp Receipt of Rs 2000: It is the case of the prosecution that one stamp receipt for Rs2000 was found during the course of searches, and the same was marked as ExP83. According to PW39, Investigating Officer, the appellant purchased land admeasuring 1.22 acres at Erra Cheruvu of Podur village of Medchal Mandal. During the search, one stamped receipt for Rs 3000 dated 25.9.1972 was seized, which shows that one Anaji Reddy received an amount of Rs 1000 from the appellant towards the advance for this land. Similarly, another Rs 2 stamped paper executed in favour of the appellant dated 25.9.1972 was seized, which shows that Anaji Reddy received the remaining payment of Rs 1000 from the appellant. Subsequently, the land was registered in favour of the appellant vide sale deed No. 115 dated 8.5.1973 under ExP83. As such, an amount of Rs 2000 was added to the assets. 60. It is the contention of the appellant that a partition deed was received on behalf of the joint family property, and the amount of Rs2000 was paid by his father for the said land. 61. As such, an amount of Rs 2000 was added to the assets. 60. It is the contention of the appellant that a partition deed was received on behalf of the joint family property, and the amount of Rs2000 was paid by his father for the said land. 61. The learned Special Judge stated that according to the appellant, the property was purchased in 1973 and ExP83 is the agreement of sale. It contains that out of the Rs 2000 sale consideration, an amount of Rs 1000 was paid on 25.9.1972 through a receipt, and the balance amount of Rs 1000 was agreed to be paid on the date of execution of the registered sale deed. The learned Special Judge noted that the transaction was entered into by the appellant independently and it is within the check period. There is no evidence before the court that the appellant executed the registered sale deed for the property and got the balance amount. Therefore, the learned Special Judge added an amount of only Rs 1000 to the assets of the appellant. 62. PW39, in his cross-examination, denied the suggestion that this item was purchased by the father of the appellant out of the Hindu Undivided Family Fund, as contended by the appellant. 63. ExP90 – the partition deed – is an agreement for the partition of joint family properties. However, it only deals with the tractor and trailer and not with the purchase of any land, and there is no connection between Exs P83 and 90. 64. ExP83 shows that one Anaji Reddy received an amount of Rs 1000 from the appellant towards the advance for this land. And since there is no evidence to show that, in addition to paying Rs 1000, the appellant paid another 1000 to Anaji Reddy, the learned Special Judge has rightly added Rs 1000 to the assets of the appellant. Thus, the finding of the learned Special Judge under this item needs no interference. 65. Item No. 15 – Promissory Notes executed in favour of the appellant: It is the prosecution’s case that during the house search, a few promissory notes executed in favour of the appellant by various persons were seized. Thus, the finding of the learned Special Judge under this item needs no interference. 65. Item No. 15 – Promissory Notes executed in favour of the appellant: It is the prosecution’s case that during the house search, a few promissory notes executed in favour of the appellant by various persons were seized. The promissory notes include: dated 4.5.1983 executed by Tipaiah for Rs 3,800; dated 29.4.1987 executed by Masireddy for Rs 1,000; dated 12.4.1990 executed by Narsimha for Rs 1,000; dated 1.1.1982 by Yadaiah for Rs 5,000; and dated 12.6.1987 executed by Narsi Reddy for Rs 2,000. Thus, an amount of Rs 12,800 was added to the assets of the appellant. 66. It is the contention of the appellant that Rs 12,800 was added to the assets without any basis, and that PW39 admitted he has not examined anybody related to the said promissory notes, which refer to the years 1982 onwards. 67. The learned Special Judge added an amount of Rs 11,800 (3,800 + 1,000 + 5,000 + 2,000) to the assets of the appellant, since ExP86 was found not to belong to the appellant, as it was not executed in favour of the appellant. The learned Special Judge considered the defence that no evidence was adduced in proof of these documents and stated that it is for the appellant to establish the fact that these documents seized from his custody do not belong to him. • ExP85 is executed in favour of the appellant for Rs 3,800. • ExP86 is not executed in favour of the appellant but is executed in favour of Maisi Reddy for Rs 1,000. • ExP87 is executed in favour of the appellant for Rs 1,000. • ExP88 is executed in favour of the appellant for Rs 5,000. • ExP89 is executed in favour of the appellant for Rs 2,000. 68. Besides denial, the appellant has not proved that these promissory notes were not executed in his favour. The learned Special Judge has rightly stated that it is for the appellant to prove that ExP85 and Exs P87 to P89, which were seized from his custody, do not belong to him. Thus, the finding of the learned Special Judge under this item needs no interference. 69. Item No. 16 –Towards Purchase of Tractor Trailer: According to the prosecution’s case, during the house search, an agreement of joint family property partnership deed—ExP90—was seized. Thus, the finding of the learned Special Judge under this item needs no interference. 69. Item No. 16 –Towards Purchase of Tractor Trailer: According to the prosecution’s case, during the house search, an agreement of joint family property partnership deed—ExP90—was seized. It states that the father of the appellant had purchased the tractor trailer in his name by obtaining a loan from SBH through Adarsha Cooperative Society, Podur village, in 1977. Later, he sold this vehicle to the appellant and his brother, Yaji Reddy, with a stipulation that the remaining instalments of Rs 1,02,554.27 were to be paid by the appellant and his brother equally. As such, an amount of Rs 51,227 fell to the share of the appellant. 70. It is the contention of the appellant that the tractor was purchased by his father by obtaining a loan from SBH, and this is evidenced by ExP90. By the time the father transferred the tractor to the appellant and his brother, an amount of Rs 67,327 was due to the bank as per the partition deed ExP90. It is submitted that the appellant never used the tractor and never paid the instalments. 71. The learned Special Judge stated that, in fact, the appellant and his brother purchased the tractor and trailer at a cost equal to the outstanding balance of the loan amount payable on the date of the said purchase and added the amount of Rs 51,227 to the assets of the appellant. 72. As per ExP90, the agreement between the appellant’s father and the appellant and his brother stipulates that the appellant and his brother agreed to pay: Rs 19,000, which the appellant’s father had already paid; Rs 16,227, towards two instalments of loan amounts; and Rs 67,327, towards the balance of twelve instalments. The total comes to Rs 1,02,554. Since the appellant and his brother agreed to jointly pay the amount of Rs 1,02,554, the learned Special Judge has rightly added half of Rs 1,02,554, which is Rs 51,227, to the assets of the appellant. 73. It is the defence of the appellant that he has not paid any amount towards the tractor, and PW39, in his cross-examination, stated that he has not verified the existence of the tractor and has not verified who paid the loan. 73. It is the defence of the appellant that he has not paid any amount towards the tractor, and PW39, in his cross-examination, stated that he has not verified the existence of the tractor and has not verified who paid the loan. However, the appellant has not adduced any evidence through his brother or anyone else to show that his brother paid the entire amount or that someone else did. He has not even examined his brother to prove that the appellant is not the one who paid this amount. Thus, the finding of the learned Special Judge under this item needs no interference. 74. In light of the above discussion, the total amount of assets as determined by this Court, when compared to the amounts calculated by the prosecution, the defence, and the special learned Special Judge in the lower court, are tabulated as under: S. No. Description of Assets Amount Calculated by the Prosecution (in Rs) Amount Calculated by the Defence (in Rs) Amount Determined by the Special Learned Special Judge in the Lower Court (in Rs) Amount Determined by this Court (in Rs) 1. Item No. 1: Appellant constructed house bearing No. 3-5-199/A/97, Narayanguda, in his name, including the cost of the plot. 18,48,517 16,50,000 16,50,000 16,50,000 2. Item No. 2: Appellant constructed house bearing No. 4-1-124, situated at Attapur. 1,13,000 Nil 1,13,000 Nil 3. Item No. 3: Appellant purchased house bearing No.5- B2/F3/FF at Barkathpura. 86,484 86,484 86,484 86,484 4. Item No. 4: Maruthi Car bearing no. AP 9 F 9600. 1,68,740 1,68,740 1,68,740 1,68,740 5. Item No. 5: Bajaj Chetak Scooter bearing No. AP 9 L 1529. 23,310 23,310 23,310 23,310 6. Item No. 6: Bank Balances. 97,900.28 95,607 97,900.28 97,900.28 7. Item No. 7: Investments made by appellant with private chits and finances. 1,03,425 1,03,425 1,03,425 1,03,425 8. Item No. 8: Bank Deposits. 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 9. Item No. 9: Cost of Household articles. 1,47,030 54,000 1,47,030 1,14,980 10. Item No. 10: Cost of Gold and Silver Articles. 44,600 Nil 14,900 13,400 11. Item No. 11: Cash 64,560 64,560 64,560 70,053 12. Item No. 12: Loans and Advances 31,976 Nil 31,976 31,976 13. Item No. 13: appellant purchased land admeasuring 1.22 acres at Yellacheruvu of Pudur Village. 2,000 Nil 1,000 1,000 14. Item No. 14: Appellant purchased and admeasuring 1.20 acres at Pudur Village. 15,000 Nil 7,500 7,500 15. Item No. 11: Cash 64,560 64,560 64,560 70,053 12. Item No. 12: Loans and Advances 31,976 Nil 31,976 31,976 13. Item No. 13: appellant purchased land admeasuring 1.22 acres at Yellacheruvu of Pudur Village. 2,000 Nil 1,000 1,000 14. Item No. 14: Appellant purchased and admeasuring 1.20 acres at Pudur Village. 15,000 Nil 7,500 7,500 15. Item No. 15: Promissory notes executed in favour of the appellant. 12,800 Nil 11,800 11,800 16. Item No. 16: Appellant’s share in purchase of Tractor bearing NO. AP F 5461 and APF 5462. 51,227 Nil 51,227 51,227 TOTAL 28,20,569.28 22,56,126.00 25,82,852.28 24,41,795.28 INCOME: 75. The following disputed items are discussed below: Item No. 1- Net Salaried Income of the Appellant: The prosecution’s case is that the appellant worked as a government servant in various capacities from 1967 to 29.3.1997. After the concerned officers furnished the pay particulars of the appellant from the date of entry into service to the date of the search, the computation was made, and it was found that the appellant received an amount of Rs 7,28,000 towards his pay and other allowances, and the same was added by the prosecution under this item. 76. The appellant contends that the total salary drawn by him is Rs 8,46,607. He argues that the salary drawn by him from 7.11.1977 to 1.4.1985 and from 1.11.1985 to 31.5.1986 were not taken into consideration. He further contends that the pay particulars for these periods were not included in Exs P 11 and 12, which contain the salary particulars of the appellant. The appellant also claims that the salary particulars from 7.11.1977 to 28.2.1979 and from 1.3.1980 to 28.2.1982 are missing, which establishes that certain salary particulars were not provided to the police by the department. The counsel also relied upon the evidence of PW9, who admitted that the salary particulars do not contain the leave encashment amount and the particulars of loans drawn by the appellant. 77. The learned Special Judge stated that when the appellant disputes his average salary for the missing period as assessed by the prosecution, he ought to have substantiated the said aspect by adducing evidence, either in the form of oral or documentary evidence. The learned Special Judge further stated that the appellant did not explain how he assessed his salary for the missing periods, despite not having any particulars of the same in his custody. The learned Special Judge further stated that the appellant did not explain how he assessed his salary for the missing periods, despite not having any particulars of the same in his custody. On the other hand, the learned Special Judge stated that PW39, the investigating officer (IO), testified that the average pay drawn particulars for the missing period were taken into consideration. Thus, the learned Special Judge concluded that Rs 7,28,000 should be considered as the appellant’s net salaried income. 78. As seen from the documents,ExP11 discloses the pay particulars for the period from 1.5.1985 to 31.10.1985; 1.6.1986 to 31.5.1987; 1.6.1987 to 31.5.1990; and 1.6.1990 to 6.4.1991. Further, ExP12 discloses the pay particulars of the appellant for the period from 1.3.1979 to 28.2.1980; 1.3.1982 to 30.4.1985; and 1.11.1985 to 31.5.1986. ExP13 discloses the salary particulars for the period from 1.5.1997 to 18.6.1997 and from 27.10.1997 to 31.5.1998, while ExP14 contains the pay particulars for the period from 1.4.1991 to 5.6.1995. ExP15(a) contains the particulars of the appellant’s period of working, place of work, and the post in which the appellant worked from 1.2.1968 until 21.5.1997. ExP15(b) is the last pay certificate, and ExP15(c) shows the pay and allowances from 1.6.1995 to 30.4.1997. The prosecution’s case is that the evidence on record discloses the appellant’s net salaried income of Rs 7,28,000. 79. In ExP11, it is mentioned that the pay particulars of the appellant from 7.11.1977 to 1.4.1985 and from 1.11.1985 to 31.5.1986 were not available. In ExP12, it is mentioned that the pay particulars from 7.11.1977 to 28.2.1979 and from 1.3.1982 to 28.2.1982 were not available in the office. PW39, the IO, admitted that, as per exhibits 11, 13, and 15(c), the salary particulars for some periods were not made available, as mentioned in the exhibits. This was also admitted by PW9. 80. The appellant contends that, considering the salaries for the missing periods mentioned in Exs P11 and P12, the total salary drawn by him would come to Rs 8,46,607. However, the appellant has not submitted any evidence to support his contention regarding how he arrived at the figure of Rs 8,46,607. 81. It is not the case that the salary for those periods was not considered by the prosecution, because PW39 stated that for the missing periods, average pay drawn particulars were taken into account. 82. However, the appellant has not submitted any evidence to support his contention regarding how he arrived at the figure of Rs 8,46,607. 81. It is not the case that the salary for those periods was not considered by the prosecution, because PW39 stated that for the missing periods, average pay drawn particulars were taken into account. 82. Moreover, in ExP11, it is also mentioned that the appellant was asked to come to the office to trace the missing records. The appellant has not provided any evidence showing that, even though the records of salary particulars for the missing periods were available, these were not submitted by the prosecution or were suppressed by the prosecution. 83. The appellant further contends that the salary particulars do not contain the leave encashment amount and the particulars of loans drawn by him, but this argument cannot be accepted. Though PW9 admitted that Exs P11 and P12 do not mention the encashment of earned leave and the particulars of any loans taken by the appellant, the appellant has not provided any evidence showing that records of leave encashment and loan particulars were available but were not included in the final settlement. 84. The learned Special Judge rightly dismissed the appellant’s contention and determined the net salaried income of the appellant to be Rs 7,28,000. Thus, the finding of the learned Special Judge under this item needs no interference. 85. Item No. 3- Loan of Rs 80,000 from Sunita Finance Corporation: The prosecution’s case is that during the house search, the RC Book of a Maruti car was seized. It shows that the car is in the name of the appellant’s wife. The investigation revealed that the appellant obtained a loan from M/s. Sunita Finance Corporation and purchased the Maruti car from Mitra Agencies. Accordingly, Sunita Finance Corporation sent a letter informing that the appellant’s wife was sanctioned a loan of Rs 80,000 for purchasing the said car. Thus, the appellant received an amount of Rs 80,000, and he same was added by the prosecution to the income of the appellant. The appellant’s contention is that this amount was borrowed by his wife and should not have been tagged to his income. 86. Thus, the appellant received an amount of Rs 80,000, and he same was added by the prosecution to the income of the appellant. The appellant’s contention is that this amount was borrowed by his wife and should not have been tagged to his income. 86. The learned Special Judge stated that since the car purchased in the name of the appellant’s wife was already considered and treated as an asset of the appellant, the amount of Rs 80,000 was tagged to the appellant’s income under this item. 87. In assets, the item no. 4, the Maruti car, which was purchased by the appellant’s wife in her name by taking a loan from M/s. Sunita Finance Corporation, was treated and tagged as an asset of the appellant, in light of the finding that the wife’s income will be added to the appellant’s income. Therefore, the finding of the learned Special Judge under this item needs no interference. 88. Item No. 4- Rental Income of the Appellant: The prosecution’s case is that the rental income received by the appellant amounts to Rs 1,00,000. During the house search of the appellant, a few tenants were found residing in the house on the 1st and 2nd floors. Subsequently, PWs 17 and 18 were examined. According to the information furnished by the two tenants, the appellant received a total amount of Rs 1 lakh in rent on the terminal date of the check period, and the same was added by the prosecution to the income of the appellant. 89. The appellant’s contention is that item Nos. 1 and 3 of the assets, which are a house and flat, respectively, were given on rent. He submitted the property statement on 20.3.1997. According to the statements filed by him, his rental income received is Rs 7,57,500. 90. The learned Special Judge stated that there was no evidence before the court to show when these statements were received by the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Hyderabad, from the appellant. Based on this, the learned Special Judge held that these annual property statements were submitted by the appellant subsequent to the date of the searches. 90. The learned Special Judge stated that there was no evidence before the court to show when these statements were received by the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Hyderabad, from the appellant. Based on this, the learned Special Judge held that these annual property statements were submitted by the appellant subsequent to the date of the searches. The learned Special Judge also stated that the burden was on the appellant to establish whether he derived any lawful income subsequent to the year 1988, and that the property statements submitted by the appellant, which were submitted subsequent to the date of the search, for the period from 1989-1990 to 1995-1996, also did not contain the particulars of the rental income derived by the appellant. Thus, the learned Special Judge did not tag this item—rental income at Rs 1,00,000, as assessed by the prosecution—to the income schedule. 91. According to the appellant, item Nos. 1 and 3 of the assets, which are a house at Narayanguda and a flat at Barkatpura, respectively, were given on rent, and he received rental income from these properties. He has also shown the rental income from these properties in his annual property statements. The annual property statements of the appellant are marked as Exs P114 to P120 for the years 1990-1996, and the same were submitted by the appellant on 20.3.1997. 92. PW39’s evidence clearly states that in Exs P114 to P120, the appellant intimated the rental income in his property statements to the department. Moreover, appellant had submitted his annual property statement only for the period 1990-1996 on 20.3.1997, as per the letter from the Director and Commissioner of Agriculture, AP, HYD, vide his letter no. Estt. Vii(4)617/97 dated 24.6.1997. Additionally, on Exhibits Exs P113 to P120, the appellant has put his signature and also mentioned the date as 20.3.1997 under his signature, as admitted by PW39. 93. From the above evidence, it is clear that the appellant had submitted his annual property statements to the department on 20.3.1997. It cannot be said that the appellant had filed his statements subsequent to the search conducted by the inspectors. The search warrants were issued on 22.3.1997, and the search was conducted at the appellant’s residence on 23.3.1997. 94. 93. From the above evidence, it is clear that the appellant had submitted his annual property statements to the department on 20.3.1997. It cannot be said that the appellant had filed his statements subsequent to the search conducted by the inspectors. The search warrants were issued on 22.3.1997, and the search was conducted at the appellant’s residence on 23.3.1997. 94. Though the date of submission of the annual property statements is only three days prior to the search, which raises a doubt, it is not the prosecution’s case that the appellant deliberately filed the statements after becoming aware of the registration of the FIR. 95. Considering the evidence of the annual property statements, it should be mentioned that these statements were not disputed by the prosecution either during the investigation or before the court. Thus, the same will be assessed to determine the rental income of the appellant. 96. The prosecution examined PWs 17 and 18, who were the tenants in the house at Narayanguda (marked as item No. 1 in assets). The defence examined DWs 1 to 3 to prove that they were tenants in the house at Narayanguda, and DWs 4 and 5 were tenants in the flat of the appellant in the Housing Board Colony, Barkatpura (marked as item No. 3 in assets). However, no documentary evidence was filed by any of these witnesses, and there is only oral evidence. 97. The only documentary evidence available is the statement filed by the appellant, marked as Exs P114 to P120. In Exs P114 to P120, the appellant’s rental income is from two assets: one from his house at Narayanguda and the second from his flat at Barkatpura. Further, the explanation to Section 13(1)(e) defines the expression “known sources of income” and states that this expression means income received from any lawful source. It also requires that the receipt should have been intimated by the public servant in accordance with any provisions of law, rules, or orders applicable to a public servant. So, as per the explanation to Section 13(1)(e), if the appellant has intimated the receipt of income in accordance with the law or provisions applicable, the same will be considered under known sources of income. 98. The evidence shows that the appellant has intimated the department, as is clear from Ex P113, regarding the rental income from the house and the flat. 98. The evidence shows that the appellant has intimated the department, as is clear from Ex P113, regarding the rental income from the house and the flat. Thus, the same can be considered. In Exs P113 to P120, the rental income values of the appellant from these two assets for the period 1990 to 1996 are extracted below: Relevant years and Exhibits Relevant property Rental income from property (per annum) 1990 (ExP114) Flat at Barkatpura 7,200 1991 (ExP115) Flat at Barkatpura 7,200 1992 (ExP116) Flat at Barkatpura 8,400 1993 (ExP117) Flat at Barkatpura 8,400 1994 (ExP118) House at Narayanguda Flat at Barkatpura 14,400 9,600 1995 (ExP119) House at Narayanguda Flat at Barkatpura 18,000 (First floor) + 18,000 (second floor) 12,000 1996 (ExP120) House at Narayanguda Flat at Barkatpura 30,000 (First floor) + 24,000 (second floor) 14,400 Total 1,71,600 99. Considering the value of rental income from the annual property statements, Exs P114-120, the rental income of the appellant comes to Rs 1,71,600. Before tagging this item of rental income as Rs 1,71,600 to the income of the appellant, two things need to be considered: i) Firstly, it is the evidence of PW39 that his investigation disclosed that, as per the documentary evidence collected, the appellant did not obtain prior permission from the department for acquiring movable and immovable properties in his name and the names of his family members, as per the APCS Conduct Rules. According to the APCS Conduct Rules, the appellant was required to give intimation to the Government before acquiring immovable properties. Both the houses from which the appellant was receiving rental income were acquired by the appellant. However, the fact that the appellant has submitted his annual property statements, Exs P113 to P121, shows that he has intimated the department about his properties. ii) Secondly, according to PW39, the appellant did not show his income in the income tax returns. However, PW24 spoke about the property tax paid by the appellant for his house at Narayanguda (item No. 1 in assets), and Ex P31 has been marked to show the tax paid. According to PW24, the annual rental value was Rs 12,000, and the tax came to Rs 3,500 per year, and the appellant paid the said tax up to 31.3.1997. According to PW24, the annual rental value was Rs 12,000, and the tax came to Rs 3,500 per year, and the appellant paid the said tax up to 31.3.1997. Further, PW24 also deposed the same for the house/flat at Barkatpura, stating that the annual rental value of the house was Rs 6,600 and the yearly tax came to Rs 1,888, and the appellant paid the property tax. Nevertheless, the non-filing of income tax returns showing rental income will not disregard the rental income specified in the annual property statements. Such returns would not by themselves establish that the income was from a lawful source as contemplated in the Explanation to Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, 1988, and independent evidence would be required to account for the same. Thus, in light of the above discussion and considering the annual property statements of the appellant, the amount of Rs1,71,600 is added under this item to the income of the appellant. 100. Item No. 8 - Income from Sale of Land and Properties: It is the case of the prosecution that during the house search, a will deed executed by the father-in-law of the appellant was seized. According to the will deed, marked as ExP91, the father-in-law of the appellant mentioned that the following assets were to be shared equally between his daughters: 1. Plot no. 21 admeasuring 250 square yards. 2. House No. 2-44 and 2-44/1 at Attapur. 3. 600 square yards plot at Attapur. 4. 0.35 acres in Sy. No. 27 and 33 of Attapur village. 5. Sy. No. 28 and 29 land of 71 guntas and 6 guntas. 6. Sy. No. 108, 109, and 110 at Nandi Musalayaguda Village admeasuring 2 acres, 90.5 guntas, and 1.5 guntas. 7. Sy. No. 108, 109, and 110 at Nandi Musalayaguda village admeasuring 2 acres, 90.5 guntas, and 1.5 guntas. 8. Rs 1,59,000 sale proceeds of land at Katta Kindi Bhoomi. 101. According to PW39, the wife of the appellant received an amount of Rs 1,59,000 from her father. Additionally, the appellant received Rs 1,50,000 as the sale consideration for land situated at Nandi Musalayaguda village. Half of the sale consideration, Rs 75,000, falls to the share of the wife of the appellant. 102. As per the agreement of sale dated 13.03.1990, the appellant agreed to sell land in survey no. Additionally, the appellant received Rs 1,50,000 as the sale consideration for land situated at Nandi Musalayaguda village. Half of the sale consideration, Rs 75,000, falls to the share of the wife of the appellant. 102. As per the agreement of sale dated 13.03.1990, the appellant agreed to sell land in survey no. 106 admeasuring 2,700 square yards situated at Attapur to one Sri Krishna Reddy for a consideration of Rs 2,30,000. This amount was equally distributed between the wife of the appellant and her sister. An amount of Rs 1,50,000 was received as income by the wife of the appellant. Thus, according to the prosecution, the appellant received Rs 3,49,000 as income from the sale proceeds of the lands of his father-in-law on behalf of his wife. However, the prosecution contended that the income of Rs 3,49,000 was not shown in the property statements submitted by the appellant and, as such, cannot be considered as income of the appellant. 103. The learned Special Judge has wrongly taken the value assessed by the prosecution under this item as Rs. 4,84,000, instead of the correct amount of Rs. 3,49,000/-. 104. The appellant contended that an amount of Rs 15,84,575 must be added under this item and examined DWs 13 to 16, marking Exs D4 to D51 and D53 to D111, which are copies of sale deeds, to prove his claim. 105. The learned Special Judge considered the evidence of DWs 13 to 18 and Exs D4, 6, 41 to 111, 113, and 114, which are copies of sale deeds. The learned Special Judge only considered the income from the sale consideration of lands under Exs D41 to D45, executed by the wife of the appellant prior to 1988, which totaled Rs 11,500. The learned Special Judge observed that the sale deeds executed after 1988 cannot be considered as income of the appellant since they were not declared by him in accordance with Rule 9 of the AP CS (Conduct) Rules, coupled with Section 13(1)(e) of the PA Act. The learned Special Judge stated that the burden is on the appellant to submit annual property statements, including agricultural income derived, which he had not done. Hence, only the amount of Rs 11,500 was added under this item by the learned Special Judge. 106. The learned Special Judge stated that the burden is on the appellant to submit annual property statements, including agricultural income derived, which he had not done. Hence, only the amount of Rs 11,500 was added under this item by the learned Special Judge. 106. The Hon’ble SC in State of T.N. v. R. Soundirarasu , (2023) 6 SCC 768 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1150, discussed the meaning of the explanation to Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act: “ 34. Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act including Explanation thereto reads as under: “ 13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant .— (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct— *** (e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “known sources of income” means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant. 35. The Explanation to Section 13(1)(e) defines the expression “known sources of income” and states that this expression means the income received from any lawful source and also requires that the receipt should have been intimated by the public servant in accordance with any provisions of law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant. 36. The Explanation to Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act has the effect of defining the expression “known sources of income” used in Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act. The Explanation to Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act consists of two parts. The first part states that the known sources of income means the income received from any lawful source and the second part states that such receipt should have been intimated by the public servant in accordance with the provisions of law, rules and orders for the time being applicable to a public servant.” 107. The above observation by the SC clearly shows that the receipt of income should have been intimated by the public servant in accordance with the provisions of the law, rules, and orders for the time being applicable to a public servant. The above observation by the SC clearly shows that the receipt of income should have been intimated by the public servant in accordance with the provisions of the law, rules, and orders for the time being applicable to a public servant. 108. This brings us to the A.P.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which is the relevant act applicable to the appellant. Sub-Rule 7 of Rule 9 of the Conduct Rules reads as follows: “(7) Every Government Employee, other than a member of the Andhra Pradesh Last Grade Service and a Record Assistant in the Andhra Pradesh General Sub-ordinate Service, shall, on first appointment to the Government Service, submit to the Government a statement of all immovable property/properties, irrespective of its value, and movable property/properties whose value exceeds Rs. 50,000/- owned, acquired, or inherited by him or held by him on lease or mortgage either in his own name or in the name of any member of his family, in the forms prescribed in Annexure-I and II separately. He shall also submit to the Government before 15 January of each year, through the proper channel, a declaration in the forms given in Annexure-I and II of all immovable/movable property/properties owned, acquired, or inherited by him or held by him on lease or mortgage, either in his own name or in the name of any member of his family. The declaration shall contain such further information as the Government may, by a general or special order, require. If in any year, a Government employee has not acquired or disposed of any immovable or movable property or any interest therein, he shall submit a declaration to that effect.” 109. Annexure I is the Statement of immovable property possessed, acquired, and disposed of by Sri ----- --- or any other person on his behalf or any member of his family during the year ending --------------- as per Sub-Rule (7) of Rule 9 of APCS (Conduct) Rules 1964. 110. From the above, it is clear that the appellant was required to submit his annual property statement as per Annexure I to show his income from the disposal of properties in his name or in the name of any other person on his behalf or any member of his family. 111. 110. From the above, it is clear that the appellant was required to submit his annual property statement as per Annexure I to show his income from the disposal of properties in his name or in the name of any other person on his behalf or any member of his family. 111. Considering the explanation to Section 13(1)(e), only the income which has been intimated by the public servant in accordance with the provisions of the law can be considered under ‘known sources of income’. Hence, the appellant’s income from the sale of lands will be considered only if it has been intimated by him under Sub-rule 7 of Rule 9. 112. Appellant has examined DWs 13 to 16 and marked Exs D4 to D51 and D53 to D111 to prove his contention that his income from the sale of lands is Rs 15,84,575. However, the appellant has not filed any documentary evidence to show that he intimated the department regarding his income from the sale of lands. Thus, only the income from the sale of lands prior to 1988 can be considered to determine the income under this item, as rightly observed by the Special Learned Special Judge. 113. Out of Exs D4 to D51 and D53 to D111, Exs D15, D20, D21, D22, D26, D27, D38, and D39 are the copies of sale deeds executed by the appellant. • ExD15 was executed in 1981, for a sale consideration of Rs3,000 • ExD20 was executed in 1981, for a sale consideration of Rs6,000 • ExD21 was executed in 1981, for a sale consideration of Rs3,000 • ExD22 was executed in 1981, for a sale consideration of Rs3,000 • ExD26 was executed in 1982, for a sale consideration of Rs6,000 • ExD38 was executed in 1982, for a sale consideration of Rs5,600 • ExD39 was executed in 1982, for a sale consideration of Rs1,500 114. The above sale deeds were executed by the appellant prior to the year 1988. Even though the appellant has not filed any evidence to show that the income from the sale of the above lands was intimated to the department, these can be considered as they are prior to the introduction of the explanation to Section 13(1)(e) of the Act 1988. 115. Even though the appellant has not filed any evidence to show that the income from the sale of the above lands was intimated to the department, these can be considered as they are prior to the introduction of the explanation to Section 13(1)(e) of the Act 1988. 115. Though the appellant is required to intimate the income from these sale deeds to the department as per Rule 9 of the APCS Conduct Rules, since these are rules, the consequence of violating these rules would be departmental action, and a violation of the same cannot be a ground to reject considering the income from the above sale deeds, given the seriousness of the consequences attached to the punishment for a person found to have assets disproportionate to their sources of income. 116. Thus, in light of the above discussion, an amount of Rs 28,100 is added as income from the sale of lands as mentioned in Exs D15, D20, D21, D22, D26, D27, D38, and D39. The following sale deeds were executed by the appellant as the GPA holder on behalf of his sister-in-law: Exs D5, D6, D8, D9, D16, D17, D24, D25, D28, D29, D30, D31, D46, D47, D48, D49, D50, and D51. 117. The income from these sale deeds cannot be considered as the income of the appellant, as they were executed on behalf of the appellant’s sister-in-law. Hence, these documents will not be considered to determine the income of the appellant. 118. The following sale deeds were executed prior to 1988: • ExD7 was executed by the appellant as the GPA holder on behalf of his wife and sister-in-law in the year 1986 for a sale consideration of Rs 15,000. • ExD10 was executed by the appellant as the GPA holder on behalf of his wife in the year 1980 for a sale consideration of Rs 3,000. • ExD11 was executed by the appellant as the GPA holder on behalf of his wife in the year 1980 for a sale consideration of Rs3,000. • ExD12 was executed by the appellant as the GPA holder on behalf of his wife in the year 1980 for a sale consideration of Rs9,000. • ExD13 was executed by the appellant as the GPA holder on behalf of his wife in the year 1981 for a sale consideration of Rs4,500. • ExD12 was executed by the appellant as the GPA holder on behalf of his wife in the year 1980 for a sale consideration of Rs9,000. • ExD13 was executed by the appellant as the GPA holder on behalf of his wife in the year 1981 for a sale consideration of Rs4,500. • ExD14 was executed by the appellant as the GPA holder on behalf of his wife in the year 1981 for a sale consideration of Rs4,500. • ExD18 was executed by the appellant as the GPA holder on behalf of his wife in the year 1980 for a sale consideration of Rs3,000. • ExD19 was executed by the appellant as the GPA holder on behalf of his wife in the year 1981 for a sale consideration of Rs 2,175. • ExD23 was executed by the appellant as the GPA holder on behalf of his wife in the year 1981 for a sale consideration of Rs3,000. • ExD34 was executed by the appellant as the GPA holder on behalf of his wife in the year 1982 for a sale consideration of Rs3,000. • ExD35 was executed by the appellant as the GPA holder on behalf of his wife in the year 1982 for a sale consideration of Rs3,000. • ExD36 was executed by the appellant as the GPA holder on behalf of his wife in the year 1982 for a sale consideration of Rs3,000. • ExD37 was executed by the appellant as the GPA holder on behalf of his wife in the year 1982 for a sale consideration of Rs3,000. • ExD40 was executed by the appellant as the GPA holder on behalf of his wife in the year 1982 for a sale consideration of Rs3,000. • ExD41 was executed by the appellant as the GPA holder on behalf of his wife in the year 1982 for a sale consideration of Rs3,000. • ExD42 was executed by the appellant as the GPA holder on behalf of his wife in the year 1982 for a sale consideration of Rs3,000. • ExD43 was executed by the appellant as the GPA holder on behalf of his wife in the year 1983 for a sale consideration of Rs5,000. • ExD44 was executed by the appellant as the GPA holder on behalf of his wife in the year 1982 for a sale consideration of Rs4,500. • ExD43 was executed by the appellant as the GPA holder on behalf of his wife in the year 1983 for a sale consideration of Rs5,000. • ExD44 was executed by the appellant as the GPA holder on behalf of his wife in the year 1982 for a sale consideration of Rs4,500. • ExD45 was executed by the appellant as the GPA holder on behalf of his wife in the year 1982 for a sale consideration of Rs2,500. 119. Since the above sale deeds were executed prior to 1988 and they were executed by the appellant as the GPA holder on behalf of his wife, the income from these sale deeds will be added to the income of the appellant, since the income of the wife of the appellant is added to the income of the appellant. 120. Further, ExD7 was executed by the appellant as a GPA holder on behalf of his wife and sister-in-law. Here, half of Rs 15,000 will be considered towards the income of the wife of the appellant since the sale was on behalf of both the wife and the sister-in-law of the appellant. Thus, an amount of Rs 7,500 will be considered from the sale under ExD7. Thus, an amount of Rs 72,675 will be added to the income of the appellant from the sale of the lands in the above-mentioned sale deeds. 121. The sale deeds, ExD4 and Exs D52 to D111, were executed subsequent to 1988. Hence, they cannot be considered to determine the income of the appellant in light of Rule 9 of the APCS Conduct Rules coupled with Section 13(1)(e), 1988. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, the amount of Rs 11,500, as assessed by the learned Special Judge, is incorrect, and the correct amount of Rs 1,00,775 (Rs28,100 + 72,675) is added. 122 . Item No. 9 – Agricultural Income: The case of the prosecution is that the Director of Agriculture, Medchal, furnished the statements showing the year-wise crops sown, acres and normal yield of different crops, total yield, rates and prevailing total income, cost of cultivation of different crops, total expenditure, and net income, which is marked as ExP121. It shows the year-wise crop sown. ExP122 is the statement containing market rates of various agricultural produce from the year 1980–81 to 1994– 95. It shows the year-wise crop sown. ExP122 is the statement containing market rates of various agricultural produce from the year 1980–81 to 1994– 95. As per ExP121, the Assistant Director has shown that the appellant’s wife received a net agricultural income of Rs 76,000 for lands situated at Attapur, and an amount of Rs 89,232 was received by the appellant for lands situated at Pudur village. Thus, according to the prosecution, the appellant received a total amount of Rs 1,65,832, and this amount was added to the income of the appellant. 123. The contention of the appellant is that Rs 34,95,862 has to be taken as income from agriculture. In addition to relying on income mentioned in the annual property statements, the appellant has examined DWs 7, 8, 11, and 12 to prove his claim. 124. The learned Special Judge, relying upon ExP121, tagged this item of agricultural income of the appellant as assessed by the prosecution to a tune of Rs 1,65,832 in the income schedule. 125. PW40 is the witness who furnished ExP121 along with the statement showing the year-wise crop sown in the land of the appellant. According to him, he went through the records provided by the ACB office, i.e., the pahanies, tentative yield of paddy and maize, and the prevailing market rate of the crops provided by the AD, Marketing. Basing on the above records, he prepared ExP121. He mentioned the year, Survey No., crop cultivated as per MRO records, acres and yield particulars, total yield in kgs, rate and total amount, approximate cost of cultivation in Rs, total expenditure, and net income. The total amount is Rs 1,56,682, the total expenditure is Rs67,450, and the net income is Rs 82,232. 126. The evidence of PW40 shows that he computed the figures based on the material supplied by the ACB officials. He did not personally ascertain the figures; the ACB provided the materials from the MRO, and based on that, he furnished ExP121. 127. ExP121 gives the following information: it shows the year, the Survey Numbers, the crops cultivated as per MRO records, acres, total yield in kgs, market rates per quintal, total amount, approximate cost of cultivation, total expenditure, and net income. ExP122 contains the market rates of agricultural commodities for the years 1980–81 to 1994–95. The prosecution has relied only upon ExP121 to calculate the appellant’s agricultural income. 128. ExP122 contains the market rates of agricultural commodities for the years 1980–81 to 1994–95. The prosecution has relied only upon ExP121 to calculate the appellant’s agricultural income. 128. The appellant has relied upon Exs P114–120 to prove his agricultural income from 1990–1997, and he has examined DWs 7, 8, 11, and 12. The learned Special Judge disregarded the evidence of these witnesses mainly on the ground that there was no documentary evidence. 129. However, PW37 stated that during the course of the search of the appellant's house, a made-up file at Serial No. 21 of the list of documents was seized. It consisted of receipts and bills relating to the sale of paddy and vegetables, bills issued by Adarsh Farmer Cooperative Society, AP State Seed Development Corporation, and the Agricultural Market Committee, Hyderabad, etc. He has not investigated the said bills in the made-up file. PW39 also admitted that made-up file Document No. 22 seized during the search contained a carbon copy of the bill. It contains receipts regarding the sale of vegetables by the appellant. 130. It is clear that though the prosecution seized the above documents, the same have not been filed by them and appear to have been suppressed. 131. According to Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, “(g) that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it.” 132. Since the prosecution has suppressed facts, an adverse inference is drawn, and the agricultural income as mentioned in the annual property statements filed by the appellant will be considered. Exs P114–120 disclose the agricultural income for the years 1990– 1997. PW39 also admitted that, as per Exs P114–120, the appellant furnished his agricultural income to his department. 133. As per Exs P114–120, the agricultural income of the appellant for the period 1990–1997 comes to Rs 16,50,000. To assess the agricultural income of the appellant prior to 1990, ExP121 can be considered, along with the evidence of the defence witnesses. However, the appellant’s contention is that in ExP122, the market rates of paddy and maize are not mentioned. According to PW40, he furnished ExP121 solely based on the information provided by the ACB inspector. If ExP122 did not contain the market rates of paddy and maize, it is questionable how PW40 arrived at the market rates for these crops to calculate the net income in ExP121. According to PW40, he furnished ExP121 solely based on the information provided by the ACB inspector. If ExP122 did not contain the market rates of paddy and maize, it is questionable how PW40 arrived at the market rates for these crops to calculate the net income in ExP121. This is particularly significant because ExP121 mentions that it was based on the prevailing market rates provided by the inspector. 134. PW41 and PW39 admitted that there is no mention of paddy or maize in ExP122. 135. For this, the defence examined DW17, the Senior Marketing Assistant in the Office of the Commissioner and Director of Agricultural Marketing. He produced the attested copy of the support prices fixed by the Government of India for agricultural crops from 1983–1984 to 1998–1999, marked as ExD112. ExD112 also shows the price of maize and paddy per quintal set by the government. However, in ExD112, the prices fixed by the government for agricultural crops are from the year 1983. Upon comparing ExD112 and ExP121, the prices of maize and paddy are higher in ExP121. Hence, ExP121 can be considered to determine the agricultural income prior to 1990, for the years 1980–1984 and 1985–1990. Though the defence has also examined DWs 7, 8, 11, and 12, they have not produced any documentary evidence. 136. As per ExP121, the net income for the years 1980–81, 1981–82, 1982–83, 1983–84, 1985–86, 1986–87, 1987–88, 1989–90 is as follows: Rs 1080; 4130 + 1600; 4880 + 120; 600 + 3000; 3000 + 7912; 650 + 5600; 930 + 4800; 1485 — totaling Rs 39,787. Thus, the total agricultural income of the appellant comes to Rs 16,50,000 + Rs 39,787 = Rs 16,89,787. For the reasons discussed above, the amount of Rs 1,65,832, as assessed by the learned Special Judge, is incorrect, and the correct amount of Rs 16,89,787 is added. 137. In light of the above discussion, the total amount of income as determined by this Court, when compared to the amounts calculated by the prosecution, the defence, and the social learned Special Judge in the lower court, are tabulated as under: S. No. Description of Income Amount Calculated by the Prosecution (in Rs) Amount Calculated by the Defence (in Rs) Amount Determined by the Special Learned Special Judge in the Lower Court (in Rs) Amount Determined by this Court (in Rs) 1. Item No. 1: Net Salaried Income 7,28,000 8,46,607 7,28,000 7,28,000 2. Item No. 2: Loan from Aryan Co.op Housing Limited 1,00,000 1,00,000 1,00,000 1,00,000 3. Item No. 3: Loan from Sunita Finance Corporation 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 4. Item No. 4: Rental Income 1,00,000 7,57,500 Nil 1,71,600 5. Item No. 5: Interest from FDRs 16,100 16,100 16,100 16,100 6. Item No. 6: Income from Chits 3,53,950 3,53,950 3,53,950 3,53,950 7. Item No. 7: Interest from SB Accounts 2,261.80 2,261.80 2,261.80 2,261.80 8. Item No. 8: Income from Sale Proceeds 3,49,000 15,84,575 11,500 1,00,775 9. Item No. 9: Agricultural Income 1,65,832 34,95,862 1,65,832 16,89,787 Additional Income (i) Amounts withdrawn from GPF of appellant 2,02,000 2,02,000 2,02,000 TOTAL 18,95,143.80 74,56,856.00 16,59,643.80 34,44,473.80 138. The total amount of income, as calculated by the Special Learned Special Judge, is Rs. 17,09,611.80, which is incorrect. The correct calculation of the total amount, based on the values of the items under income reflected in column No. 5 (Amount Determined by the Special Learned Special Judge in the Lower Court) of the above table, is Rs. 16,59,643.80 and not Rs 17,09,611.80. EXPENDITURE 139. The following disputed items are discussed below: Item No. 1 – Household Expenditure: The case of the prosecution is that during the course of the investigation, PW42, the Dy. Director, Accounts, ACB, Hyderabad, calculated the family expenditure of the appellant during the check period by adopting the scientific method, i.e., CSO data, and he arrived at the expenditure of Rs. 2,67,292.30 and the same is added to the expenditure of the appellant. The relevant document is ExP61. 140. The contention of the appellant is that his sister-in-law used to supply rice, milk, vegetables, etc., and after deducting the same, the household expenditure should have been considered at Rs. 1,50,000 instead of Rs. 2,67,292. 141. The learned Special Judge stated that the appellant did not dispute the item-wise expenditure as assessed by PW42 and observed that, in the absence of any contradicting evidence to that of PW42, he added Rs. 2,67,292.30 under this item to the expenditure of the appellant. 142. PW42, the then Dy. Director of Accounts, deposed that he computed the household expenditure of the appellant for the check period from 1.2.1968 to 23.3.1997 and furnished ExP61, showing the value of household expenditure as Rs. 2,67,292.30, as per the Central Statistical Organisation information. 143. ExP61 shows the household expenditure incurred by the appellant. 142. PW42, the then Dy. Director of Accounts, deposed that he computed the household expenditure of the appellant for the check period from 1.2.1968 to 23.3.1997 and furnished ExP61, showing the value of household expenditure as Rs. 2,67,292.30, as per the Central Statistical Organisation information. 143. ExP61 shows the household expenditure incurred by the appellant. The appellant is not contesting the values arrived at by PW42 in ExP61. His contention is that his sister-in-law used to supply milk, vegetables, etc., and the same should be deducted from the household expenditure. However, it was already discussed that DW19, the sister-in-law, deposed that she resides in the Attapur house (which is Item No. 2 in the assets), and the appellant resides in the house at Narayanguda (which is Item No. 1 in the assets). Even according to PW39, DW19 is living in the house at Attapur village. ExP47 was conducted at the house in Narayanguda (which is Item No. 1); hence, it cannot be accepted that DW19 was incurring the expenditure for the supply of milk, vegetables, etc. Further, no document has been furnished by the appellant to prove his claim. Therefore, the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted. Hence, the finding of the learned Special Judge under this item needs no interference. 144. Item No. 5 – Property Taxes paid to MCH: The prosecution’s case is that during the course of the investigation, the Dy. Commissioner sent a letter mentioning the payment of Municipal taxes in respect of the houses bearing No. 3-5-199/A/7, Narayanguda, and house bearing No. 3-4-864/6, Barakatpura, respectively. As per the said letters, which are marked as Exs P31 and P32, the appellant paid an amount of Rs. 17,500 and Rs. 34,000 towards property taxes for the above houses. 145. Similarly, the Commissioner, Rajendranagar Municipality, sent a letter informing that the appellant paid an amount of Rs. 5,592 towards house tax for the house bearing No. 4-1-124, Attapur during the check period. Thus, according to the prosecution, the appellant paid an amount of Rs. 57,092 as house tax, and the said amount was added to the total expenditure of the appellant. 146. The contention of the appellant is that, out of the total amount of Rs. 57,092, an amount of Rs. Thus, according to the prosecution, the appellant paid an amount of Rs. 57,092 as house tax, and the said amount was added to the total expenditure of the appellant. 146. The contention of the appellant is that, out of the total amount of Rs. 57,092, an amount of Rs. 5,592 relating to the Attapur house should be deducted, as his sister-in-law, DW19, has paid the taxes for the Attapur house and she is in possession of the receipts. 147. The learned Special Judge, relying upon the evidence of PWs 2, 24, 19, 39, coupled with Exs P2, P2(a), 23, 24, 31, and 32, favoured the prosecution version and added an amount of Rs. 57,092 under this item to the total expenditure of the appellant. 148. As per the evidence of PW24, ExP31, furnishing the property tax paid by the appellant, shows that the house bearing No. 3-5-199/A/7, Narayanguda, stands in the name of the appellant, that the annual rental value of the house was Rs. 12,000, which was effective from 1992, and the tax comes to Rs. 3,500 per year, and the appellant paid tax up to 31.3.1997. Further, ExP32, furnishing the property tax paid by the appellant, shows that the house bearing No. 3-4-864/6, Barkatpura, stands in the name of the appellant, that the annual rental value of the house was Rs. 6,600, which was effective from 1.4.1978, and the tax comes to Rs. 1,888.92 per year, and the appellant paid tax up to 31.3.1997. 149. The appellant has not disputed that he paid an amount of Rs. 17,500 and Rs. 34,000 towards property taxes for the above houses. His contention is that the tax for the house bearing No. 4-1-124, Attapur, was paid by his sister-in-law. For this claim, the evidence of PWs 2, 19, and DW19 is relevant. 150. According to PW2, ExP2 letter dated 22-5-2001, furnishing the details of the house bearing No. 4-1-124, Attapur, was issued by Srinivas Reddy, Commissioner, Municipality, Rajendranagar. It mentions that the said house was standing in the name of the appellant and that ExP2(a) was the certificate issued showing that the income tax was paid by the appellant up to March 1999, and that subsequently, the house tax for this house was also paid until 2004-2005. 151. It mentions that the said house was standing in the name of the appellant and that ExP2(a) was the certificate issued showing that the income tax was paid by the appellant up to March 1999, and that subsequently, the house tax for this house was also paid until 2004-2005. 151. In his cross, he also stated that the said property stands in the name of the appellant from 1989–90, that the property tax was assessed from 1989–90, and that the house tax was paid in the name of the appellant. 152. PW19 deposed that ExP24, letter dated 2.9.1997, furnishing the particulars about the house bearing No. 4-1-124, Attapur, was issued by Siva Shankar Rao, Commissioner, Municipality, Rajendranagar. It mentions that the property tax assessment was given for the said house in the year 1989–90 and the annual rental value was fixed at Rs. 2,138. That the property tax was revised during the year 1991– 1992 and was enforced w.e.f. 1.10.1993. That the house has been in the name of the appellant since 1989. That the property tax was paid up to 1995–96 and subsequently, the appellant also paid tax up to 2004-05. 153. The evidence of PWs 2 and 19, coupled with Exs P2, P2(a), and P24, is clear with respect to the house bearing No. 4-1-124, Attapur, standing in the name of the appellant and that the appellant was paying the tax. 154. Though DW19, the appellant’s sister-in-law, is residing in the house bearing No. 4-1-124, Attapur, which is also spoken to by PW39, and DW19 deposed that she is in possession of the tax receipts paid for the house at Attapur, she hasn’t filed those receipts to show in whose name the tax was paid. Further, though she denied the suggestion that she is not paying any taxes for the said house, besides her denial and oral evidence, no documentary proof has been filed by either the appellant or DW19 to show that it was, in fact, DW19 who was paying the tax for the house bearing No. 4-1-124, Attapur. In the absence of any such proof, and in light of the evidence filed on record by the prosecution, it is apparent that it was the appellant who was paying the tax for the house bearing No. 4-1-124, Attapur. Thus, the finding of the learned Special Judge under this item needs no interference. 155. In the absence of any such proof, and in light of the evidence filed on record by the prosecution, it is apparent that it was the appellant who was paying the tax for the house bearing No. 4-1-124, Attapur. Thus, the finding of the learned Special Judge under this item needs no interference. 155. Item No. 8 - Life tax paid on Maruthi car: It is the case of the prosecution that the Assistant Secretary, RTA, sent a letter, ExP6, informing that the appellant paid Rs 8,750 towards life tax and Rs 50 towards registration fee on 7.6.1994. As such, an amount of Rs 8,800 should be added to the total expenditure of the appellant. 156. The contention of the appellant is that this expenditure of Rs 8,800 relates to the wife of the appellant and must be deleted from the total expenditure. 157. The learned Special Judge, by stating that since the Maruthi car, item no. 4 in assets, was tagged to the assets of the appellant, added Rs 8,800 under this item to the total expenditure of the appellant. The appellant is not disputing the quantum paid towards the life tax of the Maruthi car bearing no. AP 9 F 9600, and his contention is that the said amount was paid by his wife and has already been included in the assets of the appellant. 158. The claim of the appellant that an amount of Rs 8,800 under this item needs to be deleted since it is the expenditure of his wife cannot be accepted, since the income of the appellant’s wife is added to the appellant’s income, and her expenditure will also be included in his expenditure. 159. However, the amount of Rs 8,750 towards life tax has already been added under item no. 4 in assets, i.e., to the value of the Maruthi car. Hence, the same cannot be added again under this item. Only an amount of Rs 50 towards registration fee is added under this item, since it was not explicitly stated that an amount of Rs 50 was added in addition to Rs 8,750 under item no. 4 in assets. Thus, for the reasons discussed above, the amount of Rs 8,800, as assessed by the learned Special Judge, is incorrect, and the correct amount of Rs 50 is added. 160. 4 in assets. Thus, for the reasons discussed above, the amount of Rs 8,800, as assessed by the learned Special Judge, is incorrect, and the correct amount of Rs 50 is added. 160. Item No. 9 - Insurance paid towards car bearing No. AP 9 F 9600: It is the case of the prosecution that the Manager, National Insurance Company, informed that the wife of the appellant paid Rs 6,530 towards the insurance of the vehicle during the check period. As such, an amount of Rs 6,530 was added to the total expenditure of the appellant. 161. The appellant’s contention is that the expenditure of Rs 6,530 under this item relates to his wife and must be deleted. 162. The learned Special Judge stated that the amount of expenditure is not in dispute, and since it stands in the name of the wife of the appellant, he tagged Rs 6,530 to the expenditure of the appellant. 163. PW29 deposed that ExP37 is the letter furnished by the Branch Manager of the Tarnaka Branch of the National Insurance Company, which contains the details of the policy taken and renewed by the wife of the appellant for vehicle no. AP 9 F 9600. It is not in dispute that the amount of Rs 6,530 was paid by the wife of the appellant. 164. Since the income of the wife of the appellant is tagged to the income of the appellant, the expenditure of the wife of the appellant will also be added to the total expenditure. Hence, the finding of the learned Special Judge under this item needs no interference. 165. Item No. 11 - Life tax paid for scooter bearing AP 9 L 1529: It is the case of the prosecution that, as per the letter of the Assistant Secretary, RTA, Hyderabad, an amount of Rs 1,910 and Rs 45 were paid towards life tax and registration fees. As such, an amount of Rs 1,955 was added. 166. The learned Special Judge added an amount of Rs 1,955 under this item to the total expenditure of the appellant. 167. The contention of the appellant is that the amount of Rs 1,955 was already included under item no. 5 in assets towards the value of the Bajaj Scooter and hence must be excluded from expenditure under this item. 168. Under item no. 167. The contention of the appellant is that the amount of Rs 1,955 was already included under item no. 5 in assets towards the value of the Bajaj Scooter and hence must be excluded from expenditure under this item. 168. Under item no. 5 of the assets, a life tax of Rs 1,910 and a registration fee of Rs 45 were included in the cost of the vehicle to determine the value of item no. 5 in assets. Hence, it cannot be included again under this item. Thus, the value of this item, i.e., Rs 1,955, as assessed by the learned Special Judge, is excluded from consideration. 169. Item No. 12 - Expenditure incurred towards LPG: It is the prosecution’s case that Mukund Enterprises sent a letter informing that one LPG gas connection No. 14822 was allotted to the appellant on 18.8.1990, and that the appellant paid Rs 1,669.40 towards the gas connection, refills, etc. As such, this amount should be added to the expenditure of the appellant. 170. The learned Special Judge accordingly added an amount of Rs 1,669.40 to the total expenditure of the appellant. The contention of the appellant is that this amount is already covered under item no. 1, i.e., household expenditure, and hence Rs 1,669.40 should be deleted under this item. 171. PW39, in his cross-examination, admitted that this item is covered under household expenditure. 172. Since PW39, the IO’s evidence is clear that an amount of Rs 1,669.40, incurred towards LPG, was included in the household expenditure, it cannot be added again under this item. Hence, the value of this item, i.e., Rs 1,669.40, as assessed by the learned Special Judge, is excluded from consideration. 173. Item No. 13: Expenditure on Telephone: The case of the prosecution is that during the course of the investigation, the accounts officer, Hyderabad telecom district, sent letters informing that the appellant had one telephone No. 243773 at his portion and another No. 3223773 in the same premises. The letter, ExP33, mentioned that the appellant paid an amount of Rs 8,789 and Rs 33,759 towards rental charges for the said telephones by depositing Rs 1,000 each. According to the prosecution, the appellant paid Rs 44,048 towards the telephone installed in his house; as such, this amount was added to the expenditure of the appellant. 174. The letter, ExP33, mentioned that the appellant paid an amount of Rs 8,789 and Rs 33,759 towards rental charges for the said telephones by depositing Rs 1,000 each. According to the prosecution, the appellant paid Rs 44,048 towards the telephone installed in his house; as such, this amount was added to the expenditure of the appellant. 174. The contention of the appellant is that even at the time of inspection, telephone number 243773 was in the premises of a tenant, and the amount of Rs 8,879 was incurred by the appellant, while the rest of the amount was paid by the tenant. The appellant examined DW3 to prove his claim. 175. The learned Special Judge disbelieved the evidence of DW3 and added an amount of Rs 44,048 to the expenditure of the appellant. PW25 deposed that ExP33 is the letter furnished by the then Accounts Officer, containing the details of the installation of telephone no. 243773 and the particulars of the amounts paid towards the installation charges, enclosing the payment history. The said telephone was sanctioned in the name of the appellant, at the residence of 3-5-199/A/7, 2nd Floor, Narayanguda. The installation date was in 1995, and an amount of Rs 1,000 was deposited towards the advance rental deposit. According to PW25, the payment for telephone bills from 1.3.1995 to 1.7.1997 was Rs 10,085. 176. Further, PW25 also deposed that ExP33(a) furnished information regarding telephone no. 241724 and the amount deposited towards the deposit charges, also enclosing the payment history particulars. As per ExP33(a), the said telephone was issued in the name of the appellant, at H. No. 3-5-199/A/7, Ground Floor, Narayanguda. The subscriber paid an amount of Rs 1,000 towards the advance rental deposit, and he paid the telephone bill from 1.1.1992 to 1.7.1997, totalling Rs 26,958. 177. Under ExP33, an amount of Rs10,085 was paid as telephone charges, in addition to Rs1,000 deposited towards the advance rental deposit. Under Ex.P33(a), an amount of Rs26,958 was paid as telephone charges, along with Rs1,000 deposited towards the advance rental deposit. Thus, the total expenditure under this item amounts to Rs39,043, as per the evidence of PW25, and not Rs44,048 as assessed by the prosecution. 178. It is DW3’s evidence that he was a tenant in the house at H. No. 3-5-199/A/7, 2nd Floor, from 6/92 to 3/97. He also stated that he used to pay the telephone charges. 179. Thus, the total expenditure under this item amounts to Rs39,043, as per the evidence of PW25, and not Rs44,048 as assessed by the prosecution. 178. It is DW3’s evidence that he was a tenant in the house at H. No. 3-5-199/A/7, 2nd Floor, from 6/92 to 3/97. He also stated that he used to pay the telephone charges. 179. It is not disputed that there were tenants staying at H. No. 3-5- 199/A/7, Narayanguda, as PW39 also stated that during the search of the appellant’s house, a few tenants were found residing on the 1st and 2nd floors. Further, Exs P113 to P120 also show that the appellant received rental income from this house. 180. DW3’s evidence shows that he was residing on the 2nd Floor of the appellant’s house, and as per ExP33, telephone no. 243773 was sanctioned in the name of the appellant, at the residence of 3-5-199/A/7, 2nd Floor, Narayanguda. 181. Though ExP33 shows that the telephone number was sanctioned in the name of the appellant, it does not show the particulars of who paid the amount. Further, even PW39 admitted that, in the inventory at the time of the search of the appellant’s house, only one telephone was found and mentioned. 182. Though PW39 added that the other telephone, which is in the name of the appellant, is in the portion of the tenants and is also maintained by the appellant, no receipts, etc., have been filed to show that the appellant was paying the charges for the telephone on the 2nd Floor. 183. Though DW3 has also not filed any documentary proof to show that he paid the telephone charges, the evidence is clear that telephone no. 243773 was placed on the 2nd Floor of the house, and it is clear that there were tenants residing on the 2nd Floor, as admitted by PW39 as well. There is no reason why the appellant would pay the telephone charges of the tenants. 184. In light of the above discussion, an amount of Rs 10,085, which was paid for the telephone bills of telephone no. 243773 at the residence of 3-5-199/A/7, 2nd Floor, Narayanguda, is deducted under this item from the amount of Rs 39,043. The amount of Rs 1,000 paid towards the advance rental deposit is not deducted as DW3 did not depose that he paid such advance. 243773 at the residence of 3-5-199/A/7, 2nd Floor, Narayanguda, is deducted under this item from the amount of Rs 39,043. The amount of Rs 1,000 paid towards the advance rental deposit is not deducted as DW3 did not depose that he paid such advance. Thus, for the reasons discussed above, the amount of Rs 44,048, as assessed by the learned Special Judge, is incorrect, and the correct amount of Rs 28,958 (Rs 39,043 – Rs 10,085) is added. 185. Item No. 15- Expenditure on Scooter: The prosecution’s case is that the assistant branch manager, Oriental Insurance, sent a letter informing that the son of the appellant has paid Rs 351 towards the insurance of the scooter, and hence, this amount of Rs 351 was added under this item. 186. The learned Special Judge added this amount to the expenditure of the appellant on the ground that the son of the appellant has no independent income. 187. The evidence of PW27 is clear that ExP35 was issued by the assistant branch manager of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, furnishing the details of the motorcycle policy of engine no. 46398, and that the son of the appellant, Sripal Reddy, is the policyholder. It was also stated that the son of the appellant paid an amount of Rs 351 towards the premium of the insurance. It is admitted that the son of the appellant is dependent on him and has no independent income. Hence, the finding of the learned Special Judge under this item needs no interference. 188 . Item No. 16- Electricity Consumption Charges: It is the case of the prosecution that during the house search, it was found that an electricity connection was given to the house of the appellant, bearing House No. 3-199/A/7, Narayanguda. The Assistant Accounts Officer, APSEB, Hyderabad, sent a letter informing that House No. 3-199/A/7, Narayanguda, was allotted to consumer SC Nos. F3-3134, 3135, 3136, 3137, and 3138. Consumer No. F3-3134 was allotted to the ground floor where the appellant resides. As such, the electricity consumption charges in respect of the said portion were taken into account. An amount of Rs 6351 was paid for the said portion towards electricity consumption charges, and thus, this amount was added to the expenditure of the appellant. 189. The contention of the appellant is that this amount is covered by household expenditure. As such, the electricity consumption charges in respect of the said portion were taken into account. An amount of Rs 6351 was paid for the said portion towards electricity consumption charges, and thus, this amount was added to the expenditure of the appellant. 189. The contention of the appellant is that this amount is covered by household expenditure. The learned Special Judge rejected the claim of the appellant and added Rs 6351 to the expenditure of the appellant under this item. 190. PW39, in his cross-examination, admitted that Item No. 16, i.e., Electricity Consumption Charges, is covered in the household expenditure. 191. In light of the IO/PW39’s admission, the value of this item, i.e., Rs 6351, as assessed by the learned Special Judge, is excluded from consideration. 192. Item No. 17: Subscription towards LIC premia: It is the case of the prosecution that during the house searches, receipts pertaining to bonds Nos. 640727502 and 640729089 were seized, which were in the name of the appellant and his wife. As per the said documents, the appellant paid an amount of Rs 84,752 for the said policies. Further, some old premium receipts of LIC Policy No. 38483034 were also seized, and as per these receipts, the appellant insured his life with LIC for a yearly premium of Rs 2,152.50 for 15 years, for Rs 30,000, on 15.4.1975. The appellant initially paid an amount of Rs 32,287.50 towards premiums during the check period. Thus, the appellant totally paid Rs 1,17,039.50 towards LIC premiums, and as such, this amount is added to the expenditure of the appellant. The prosecution examined PW38 and marked Exs P76, P77, P95, and P96 under this item. 193. The contention of the appellant is that out of the amount of Rs 1,17,039.50, an amount of Rs 32,287 was paid to the appellant towards Maturity Policy No. 38483834, and the same has to be deducted from the expenditure. 194. The learned Special Judge, relying on the evidence of PW38, coupled with Exs P76, P77, P95, and P96, stated that the appellant paid the amount of Rs 1,17,039.50 towards LIC premiums. The learned Special Judge also observed that no evidence was adduced by the appellant to prove his claim. 195. PW38, an LIC agent, deposed that the wife of the appellant is the policyholder of LIC with Policy No. 640727502. The policy commenced from December 1994. The learned Special Judge also observed that no evidence was adduced by the appellant to prove his claim. 195. PW38, an LIC agent, deposed that the wife of the appellant is the policyholder of LIC with Policy No. 640727502. The policy commenced from December 1994. The sum assured was Rs 2,00,000, and the premium was fixed at Rs 14,594 yearly. Further, PW38 stated that in the year 1994, at the time of taking the policy, i.e., on 28.12.1994, an amount of Rs 3,502 was paid by the policyholder, and for the next year, i.e., in December 1995, the policyholder paid an amount of Rs 14,594 and also paid Rs 322 towards the late fee, totaling Rs 18,418. ExP76 is the receipt issued by the LIC. 196. ExP76 receipt shows that an amount of Rs 18,418 was paid by the wife of the appellant for Policy No. 640727502 for 1994 and 1995. ExP95 is the letter furnishing the details of Policies 640729089 and 640727502 in the names of the appellant and his wife, respectively. As per ExP95, the total premium paid on both policies by the appellant and his wife is Rs 84,752. ExP95 also shows that the premiums for both policies were paid up to November 1996 and December 1996, respectively. 197. ExP96 contains the details of the policy held in the name of the appellant, which shows that the date of maturity was 28.12.2014. Further, ExP97 contains the details of the policy held in the name of the wife of the appellant, which shows that the date of maturity was 1.11.2009. 198. ExP95 gives the details of the entire premium paid by the appellant and his wife for Policies 640729089 and 640727502 from the year 1994 until 1996, and a total of Rs 84,752 was paid towards both policies by the appellant and his wife. ExP96 covers the premium paid by the appellant’s wife under ExP76, so the amount under ExP76 is once again not considered. 199. The check period is from 1.2.1968 to 23.3.1997. ExP95 contains the details of the premium paid until December and November 1996. ExP96 shows that the appellant was required to pay Rs 11,092 yearly on 28th December, since the policy commenced on 28.12.1994. ExP97 shows that the wife of the appellant was required to pay Rs 8,194 yearly on 1st November, since the policy commenced on 1.11.1994. 200. ExP95 contains the details of the premium paid until December and November 1996. ExP96 shows that the appellant was required to pay Rs 11,092 yearly on 28th December, since the policy commenced on 28.12.1994. ExP97 shows that the wife of the appellant was required to pay Rs 8,194 yearly on 1st November, since the policy commenced on 1.11.1994. 200. From the above, it is clear that only ExP95 can be considered to calculate the expenditure of the appellant and his wife towards premiums on the policies, since the same contains details of premiums paid until 1996. As per ExP96, the next premium was to be paid on 28.12.1997, and as per ExP97, the next premium was to be paid on 1.11.1997. Hence, since both are subsequent to 23.3.1997, i.e., the end of the check period, the premium paid for the year 1997 cannot be considered. 201. Moreover, ExP94, LIC receipts shows that the appellant paid Rs 2,192.90, Rs 2,243, Rs 2,273, and Rs 2,152 towards LIC premium for Policy No. 38483034, amounting to a total of Rs 8,861. 202. Though the appellant claimed that Rs 32,287 was received by him towards the maturity of Policy No. 38483834, the same cannot be accepted, since the maturity amount received from LIC—as reflected in ExP98—has already been added to the income of the appellant. Thus, for the reasons discussed above, the amount of Rs 1,17,039.50, as assessed by the learned Special Judge, is incorrect, and the correct amount of Rs 93,613 (i.e., Rs 84,752 + Rs 8,861) is added. 203. Item No. 18 – Subscription made by appellant towards Private chits: The case of the prosecution is that the appellant joined as a member of a chit vide Ticket No. 23 on 18.5.1994 with M/s Shashi Chit Funds. The duration of the chit was 25 months, and the value was Rs 2 lakhs. This chit was closed on 10.9.1995. It is alleged that the appellant paid Rs 1,71,474 towards the said chit as instalments, as informed by the manager of the chit fund. 204. Further, according to the prosecution, the appellant joined as a member of a chit vide Ticket No. 25 on 24.4.1992. The value of this chit was Rs 1,00,000 and the period was 25 months. The appellant paid Rs 85,292 towards the instalments of the said chit up to 14.6.1993. As such, this amount was also added under this item. 204. Further, according to the prosecution, the appellant joined as a member of a chit vide Ticket No. 25 on 24.4.1992. The value of this chit was Rs 1,00,000 and the period was 25 months. The appellant paid Rs 85,292 towards the instalments of the said chit up to 14.6.1993. As such, this amount was also added under this item. 205. It was further the case that the wife of the appellant joined as a member of chit Group No. 514, vide Ticket No. 18 on 23.12.1995. The duration of the said chit was 20 months and the value of the chit was Rs 50,000. The wife of the appellant paid Rs 34,040 towards subscription up to 29.3.1997. As such, this amount was also added. Similarly, it was stated that the wife of the appellant joined as a member vide Ticket No. 5 on 24.4.1992. The value of the chit was Rs 50,000 and the duration was 20 months. The wife of the appellant paid Rs 43,670 towards the subscription. The prosecution examined PW14 and marked ExP18 under this item. Thus, the prosecution added a total of Rs 3,34,476 under this item to the total expenditure of the appellant. 206. The learned Special Judge, relying on the admission of PW39 in his cross-examination that an amount of Rs 1,71,474 and Rs 85,292 was already deducted from the chit bid amount and that the same has to be deleted from the expenditure under Item No. 18, added only an amount of Rs 77,710 (34,040 + 43,670) under this item. 207. The contention of the appellant is that the amount of Rs 77,710 added by the trial court is erroneous and that the same has to be deleted. 208. ExP17 is the letter from Shashi Chit Funds furnishing the details of the chit groups joined by the appellant. ExP18 is the letter from Hanuman Chit Funds furnishing the details of the chit groups joined by the appellant and his wife. 209. As per ExP17: • The appellant was a member of Chit Group No. SA3, Ticket No.23, and he has paid a total of Rs 1,71,474 until 29.3.1997. • The appellant was a member of Chit Group No. SB-1, Ticket No.25, and he has paid a total of Rs 85,292 until 29.3.1997. Thus, as per ExP17, a total of Rs 2,56,766 was paid towards the above chits by the appellant. 210. • The appellant was a member of Chit Group No. SB-1, Ticket No.25, and he has paid a total of Rs 85,292 until 29.3.1997. Thus, as per ExP17, a total of Rs 2,56,766 was paid towards the above chits by the appellant. 210. As per ExP18: • The appellant’s wife was a member of Chit Group No. S14, Ticket No. 18, and she has paid a total of Rs 34,040 until 29.3.1997. • The appellant’s wife was a member of Chit Group No. S8, Ticket No. 5, and she has paid a total of Rs 43,670 until 29.3.1997. Thus, as per ExP18, a total of Rs 77,710 was paid towards the above chits by the appellant and his wife. 211. PW39 admitted in his cross-examination that the subscription amounts of Rs 1,71,474 and Rs 85,292 were already deducted from the chit bid amount, and as such, the same have to be excluded under Item No. 18 towards expenditure. Hence, an amount of Rs 2,56,766 (Rs 1,71,474 + Rs 85,292) is deducted from Rs 3,34,476 assessed by the prosecution. Hence, the finding of the learned Special Judge under this item needs no interference. 212. Item No. 19- Expenditure incurred towards salaries of the servants: It is the case of the prosecution that, as per the long register, ExP82, maintained by the appellant and mentioning the salaries of the farm servants, an amount of Rs 1,39,839 was paid towards salaries during the check period. As such, this amount was added under this item. 213. The fact that the contents of ExP82 can be relied upon in their entirety was already discussed under Item No. 12 of assets; therefore, Item No. 19 of expenditure has to be considered as claimed by the prosecution. Thus, the finding of the learned Special Judge under this item needs no interference. 214. Item No. 21- Payment to Sri K Bhaskar Reddy and Ors: It is the prosecution’s case that during the searches, one agreement dated 7.4.1982 between the appellant’s wife, his sister-in- law, and mother-in-law, etc., marked as ExP99, was seized. As per this agreement, the appellant agreed to pay Rs 45,000 to Bhaskar Reddy and others towards their family settlement. The appellant paid this amount on two occasions: Rs 10,000 and Rs 35,000. The expenditure of Rs 45,000 was equally shared by the appellant’s wife and his sister-in-law. As per this agreement, the appellant agreed to pay Rs 45,000 to Bhaskar Reddy and others towards their family settlement. The appellant paid this amount on two occasions: Rs 10,000 and Rs 35,000. The expenditure of Rs 45,000 was equally shared by the appellant’s wife and his sister-in-law. An amount of Rs 22,500, the share of the appellant’s wife, is added to the total expenditure of the appellant. 215. The learned Special Judge, relying on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, and that even according to the appellant, the amount was paid by his wife, added Rs 22,500 to the expenditure of the appellant. 216. The appellant’s contention is that the amount of Rs 22,500 was paid to Bhaskar Reddy by his wife and sister-in-law, and the same cannot be tagged to his expenditure. It was also contended that Bhaskar Reddy was not examined. 217. ExP99 clearly mentions that it is an agreement between the appellant’s wife, his mother-in-law, and his sister-in-law, on one hand, and Kaveligudem Venkatamma, Janga Reddy, Bhaskar Reddy, on the other hand, wherein the appellant’s wife, his mother-in-law, and his sister-in-law have agreed to pay Rs 45,000 to the other parties. Thus, it is clear that Rs 45,000 was paid by the appellant’s wife and sister-in-law. 218. Though, PW39, in his examination, has stated that he has not examined Bhaskar Reddy and others, the non-examination of Bhaskar Reddy and others, in light of ExP99, is of no consequence. Also, since the appellant has admitted that his wife has paid the amount mentioned under ExP99. 219. Since the income of the wife of the appellant is also added to the income of the appellant, an amount of Rs 45,000 is divided between the appellant’s wife and his sister-in-law. Thus, the finding of the learned Special Judge under this item needs no interference. 220. Item No. 22- Loan from Sunita Finance Corporation: It is the prosecution’s case that during the course of investigation, Sunita Corporation sent a letter informing that the wife of the appellant repaid the loan of Rs 1,04,000 up to 8.7.1995. As such, an amount of Rs 1,04,000 was added to the expenditure of the appellant. 221. The learned Special Judge stated that admittedly, the said loan was availed to purchase the Maruti car, which was in the name of the appellant’s wife. As such, an amount of Rs 1,04,000 was added to the expenditure of the appellant. 221. The learned Special Judge stated that admittedly, the said loan was availed to purchase the Maruti car, which was in the name of the appellant’s wife. Thus, he added an amount of Rs 1,04,000 under this item to the expenditure of the appellant. 222. The contention of the appellant is that the loan under ExP73 was repaid by the wife of the appellant and hence, cannot be added to his expenditure. 223. ExP73 clearly shows that Rs 1,04,000 was paid by the wife of the appellant as repayment of the loan taken for the purchase of the Maruti car. Since the income of the wife of the appellant is included in the appellant’s income, the appellant’s wife’s expenditure will also be included. Hence, the finding of the learned Special Judge under this item needs no interference. 224. Item No. 23- Expenditure towards spare parts: It is the prosecution’s case that during the search, Exs P106 to P111, which are bills pertaining to the purchase of spare parts, were seized. As per the said bills, the appellant incurred an expenditure of Rs 5338 towards spare parts and the servicing of Maruti Car No. AP 9 F 9600. As such, this amount of Rs 5338 is added to the expenditure of the appellant. 225. The learned Special Judge, relying upon Exs P106 to P111, tagged an amount of Rs 5338 to the expenditure of the appellant. The contention of the appellant is that no evidence was placed before the court on this aspect. 226. ExP106 to ExP111 were seized during the search of the appellant’s house. All these receipts are in the name of the appellant. Thus, it cannot be said that these documents do not belong to the appellant or that the expenditure amount mentioned in the above bills/receipts was not incurred by the appellant. Hence, the finding of the learned Special Judge under this item needs no interference. 227. Item No. 24- Expenditure towards maintenance of vehicles: It is the case of the prosecution that during the investigation, it was revealed that the appellant was in possession of two vehicles, one Maruti car and one Bajaj Scooter, since 1994. Hence, the finding of the learned Special Judge under this item needs no interference. 227. Item No. 24- Expenditure towards maintenance of vehicles: It is the case of the prosecution that during the investigation, it was revealed that the appellant was in possession of two vehicles, one Maruti car and one Bajaj Scooter, since 1994. After considering the maintenance costs calculated at an average of Rs 600 per month for the said car and scooter, an amount of Rs 18,000 under this item is added to the expenditure of the appellant. 228. The learned Special Judge stated that the maintenance expenditure assessed at Rs 600 per month for both vehicles is very meagre and, in fact, less. Thus, the learned Special Judge added an amount of Rs 18,000 under this item to the expenditure of the appellant. 229. In his cross-examination, PW39 admitted that he calculated the expenditure towards the maintenance of the vehicles solely on the basis of average expenditure. The prosecution failed to furnish any details of the vehicles, such as the number of kilometres run or any other relevant data, to substantiate the basis for considering the maintenance expenditure as Rs 600 per month. Hence, in the absence of any documentary proof and based purely on guesswork, the amount under this item cannot be added. Hence, the value of this item, i.e., Rs. 18,000, as assessed by the learned Special Judge, is excluded from consideration. 230. In light of the above discussion, the total amount of expenditure as determined by this Court, when compared to the amounts calculated by the prosecution, the defence, and the social learned Special Judge in the lower court, are tabulated as under: S. No. Description of Expenditure Amount Calculated by the Prosecution (in Rs) Amount Calculated by the Defence (in Rs) Amount Determined by the Special Learned Special Judge in the Lower Court (in Rs) Amount Determined by this Court (in Rs) 1. Item No. 1: Household Expenditure 2,67,292.30 1,50,000 2,67,292.30 2,67,292.30 2. Item No. 2: Repayment of loan to Aryan Coop Housing Society 1,30,530 1,30,530 1,30,530 1,30,530 3. Item No. 3: Educational Expenditure 1,12,550 1,12,550 1,12,550 1,12,550 4. Item No. 4: Expenditure towards marriage of Smt. Anitha 50,000 Nil Nil Nil 5. Item No. 5: Property taxes paid to MCH 57,092 51,500 57,092 Rs 57,092 6. Item No. 6: Water Consumption Charges 9,958 2,445 2,445 2,445 7. Item No. 3: Educational Expenditure 1,12,550 1,12,550 1,12,550 1,12,550 4. Item No. 4: Expenditure towards marriage of Smt. Anitha 50,000 Nil Nil Nil 5. Item No. 5: Property taxes paid to MCH 57,092 51,500 57,092 Rs 57,092 6. Item No. 6: Water Consumption Charges 9,958 2,445 2,445 2,445 7. Item No. 7: Payment made to Harivihar Colony Welfare Association 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 8. Item No. 8: Life Tax Paid on Maruthi Car 8,800 8,800 8,800 50 9. Item No. 9: Insurance paid towards car bearing no. AP 9 F 9600 6,530 6,530 6,530 6,530 10. Item No. 10: Registration fees and Stamp Duty 5,675 2,675 2,675 2,675 11. Item No. 11: Life Tax Paid for Scooter bearing No. AP 9 L 1529 1,955 1,955 1,955 Nil 12. Item No. 12: Expenditure incurred towards LPG 1,699 Nil 1,699 Nil 13. Item No. 13: Expenditure on Telephone 44,048 23,688 44,048 28,958 14. Item No. 14: Locker Rents 690 690 690 690 15. Item No. 15: Expenditure on Scooter 351 Nil 351 351 16. Item No. 16: Electricity Consumption Charges 6,351 Nil 6,351 Nil 17. Item No. 17: Subscription towards LIC 1,17,039.50 84,752 1,17,039.50 93,613 18. Item No. 18: Subscription towards Chits 3,34,476 Nil 77,710 77,710 19. Item No. 19: Expenditure incurred towards salaries of servants 1,39,839 Nil 1,39,839 Rs 1,39,839 20. Item No. 20: Expenditure incurred towards maintenance of mother-in-law 16,800 Nil Nil Nil 21. Item No. 21: Payment to Sri K Bhasker Reddy and Ors 22,500 Nil 22,500 22,500 22. Item No. 22: Loan from Sinta Finance Corporation 1,04,000 Nil 1,04,000 1,04,000 23. Item No. 23: Expenditure towards spare parts 5,338 Nil 5,338 5,338 24. Item No. 24: Expenditure towards maintenance of vehicles 18,000 Nil 18,000 Nil 25. Item No. 25: Expenditure towards payment of premia to National 9,062 Nil Nil Nil TOTAL 14,75,575.80 5,81,115.00 11,32,434.80 10,57,163.30 Thus, the following amounts of assets, income, and expenditure have been arrived at by this Court: Assets Rs 24,41,795.28 Income Rs 34,44,473.80 Expenditure Rs 10,57,163.30 231. By deducting the expenditure of Rs 10,57,163.30 from the total income of Rs 34,44,473.80, the likely savings is Rs 23,87,310.50. Consequently, the disproportionate assets, as calculated by this Court, are as follows: Savings – Assets = Rs 23,87,310.50 – Rs 24,41,795.28 = Rs - 54,484.78. Thus, the disproportionate assets arrived at by this Court total Rs 54,484.78 232. By deducting the expenditure of Rs 10,57,163.30 from the total income of Rs 34,44,473.80, the likely savings is Rs 23,87,310.50. Consequently, the disproportionate assets, as calculated by this Court, are as follows: Savings – Assets = Rs 23,87,310.50 – Rs 24,41,795.28 = Rs - 54,484.78. Thus, the disproportionate assets arrived at by this Court total Rs 54,484.78 232. In M. Krishna Reddy v. State of A.P. 1992 (4) SCC 45 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that a Government memo allowing a margin of 20% on the income of a government servant while computing disproportionate assets cannot be laid down as a proposition of law. 233. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Others, 1995 (6) SCC 749 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the principle of allowing a deduction beyond 10% while calculating disproportionate assets of an officer would be undesirable and inappropriate. 234. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Krishnanand Agnihotri v. State of M.P. (1977) 1 SCC 816 , held that 10% of the disproportionate assets need to be deducted in arriving at the finding that the appellant had disproportionate assets. 235. The total income of the appellant, as determined by this Court, is Rs 34,44,473.80. Extending the benefit of 10% in calculating the disproportion, 10% of the income would be Rs 3,44,447.38 (i.e., 10% of Rs 34,44,473.80). Since the disproportion now computed is Rs 54,484.78, which is less than the 10% deduction allowed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned learned Special Judgements, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 236. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed.