JUDGMENT : V. SRISHANANDA, J. 1. Heard Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned counsel for the appellant-Lokayukta and Sri Avinash A. Uploankar, learned counsel for the respondent-accused. 2. The Karnataka Lokayukta, Kalaburagi has preferred this appeal questioning the validity of the judgment passed by the Special Judge, Kalaburagi in Special Case No.12/2017 (Lokayukta) dated 12.11.2020, whereby, the accused/respondent was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘P.C. Act’). 3. Facts in brief, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under: 3.1 The respondent/accused was working as an Assistant Engineer in Karnataka State Electricity Board. He discharged his work in Kalaburagi and Alland. When he was working as and Assistant Executive Engineer, Nodal Officer, 110/11, South MUSS, KPTCL, Kalaburagi, he was kept under observation for the amassing illegal assets than his known source of income to the prosecution. Check period was fixed from 20.11.1998 to 29.10.2013. 3.2 Information collected by the Lokayukta Police in the check period by taking the known source of income of the accused and the expenditure made by him, the Investigation Officer was of the opinion that accused held disproportionate assets and expenditure during the check period to the tune of Rs.1,56,54,222.58/- which was 82.65% more than the known source of income to the prosecution. Hence, filed the charge-sheet. 3.3 Presence of the accused was secured and charges were framed for the offences under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. Accused pleased not guilty, therefore, trial was held. 4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution in all examined 11 witnesses as PWs.1 to 11 and placed on record 94 documents, which were exhibited and marked as Ex.P1 to P94. On behalf of the accused, portion of the contents of statement No.5 at page No.82(B)(57) got marked in the evidence of PW10 - Investigating Officer as Ex.D1. 5. On conclusion of recording of evidence, accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded, wherein, accused has denied the incriminatory materials found in the case of prosecution put to him. Accused did not choose to file any written submission as is contemplated under Section 314 of Cr.P.C., nor placed any defence evidence on record. 6. 5. On conclusion of recording of evidence, accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded, wherein, accused has denied the incriminatory materials found in the case of prosecution put to him. Accused did not choose to file any written submission as is contemplated under Section 314 of Cr.P.C., nor placed any defence evidence on record. 6. Thereafter, learned trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties and by impugned judgment acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the Lokayukta preferred the present appeal on the following grounds: (i) That the judgement passed by the Trial court is contrary to the facts of the case as well as against the well established principles of law, besides being erroneous, hence the impugned judgement deserves to be set aside. (ii) That the Trial Court without proper appreciation of the facts of the case and the evidence led by the prosecution has passed the order of acquittal in a mechanical manner which has led into gross miscarriage of justice. (iii) That the Prosecution has examined 11 witnesses and got marked 94 documents to prove the case which has been over looked/discarded by the trial court without proper appreciation which has led into gross miscarriage of justice. (iv) That the Trial court has failed to appreciate the fact that the accused has a open plot at Yalahanka, Bangalore wherein he is getting Rs.3,60,630/- as rent, wherein the investigation officer has taken asset at Rs.85,000/-, under the list of movable and immovable property where as it is admitted by the accused that he is getting rent of Rs.3,60,630/- has not been considered by Trial Judge and has not taken difference amount of Rs.2,75,630/- as the income derived from the said plot. (v) that the Trial Court has failed to consider the fact that claim of the accused that an income of Rs.5,55,000/- has been derived from Sy.No.496/1 from 2000 to 2012-13 where as the investigation officer has taken the income at Rs.2,50,000/-, even though the accused has not produced any a single document to prove that he has derived a income of Rs.5,55,000/-. (vi) That as per the wife of the accused, she has taken a loan of Rs.16,70,000/- from the Industrial Bank, Basavanagudi, Bangalore to purchase a JCB as per Ex.D1, where as the Trial Court has taken Rs. 10,00,000/- as loan received by the wife of the accused therefore there is a difference of Rs.6,70,000/- which the Trial Court has taken it as the income, which is unjustifiable and against the well established principles of law, hence the impugned order needs to be interfered. (vii) That the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the income and expenditure of the accused and has totally over looked the facts and fixed produced by the prosecution and the amount highlighted in the movable and immovable assets and has wrongly assessed that the accused has disproportionate assets only to the extent of 5%, where as the prosecution has proved the facts that the accused has disproportionate income to the tune of 15%, therefore the impugned order needs to be interfered with. 8. Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned counsel for the appellant-Lokayukta reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum vehemently contended that the trial Court has not taken into consideration the calculation placed on record in the form of statements of known source of income, expenditure, and in the absence of failure to account for the excess income, when there is a clear finding that there was an excess of 15% of the assets held by the accused, which is in excess to the known source of income to the prosecution, the trial Judge ought to have convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. 9. He has also contended that while computing the value of the movable and immovable assets, the Trial Court committed a grave error in holding that excess income is only to the tune of 5% and therefore, it is in the permissible limit and wrongly recorded an order of acquittal, resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the appeal. 10. 10. Sri Subhash Mallapur highlighted that the contention taken on behalf of the accused that his wife had borrowed a sum of Rs.16,70,000/- from Industrial Bank, Basavanagudi, Bangalore, for purchase of JCB earthmover, which is found in statement No.5 filed by the prosecution itself and taken the income of only to the extent of Rs.10,00,000/- and difference of Rs.6,70,000/- being the excess income is per-se incorrect and unjustifiable in the light of settled principles of law and therefore, the reasoning of the trial Judge that excess income is only to the tune of 5% is not only against the proved factual aspects, but also against the set principles of law and thus, sought for allowing the appeal. 11. Per contra, Sri Avinash A. Uplaonkar, learned counsel representing the respondent/accused vehemently contended that the calculation as is made by the prosecution itself is taken as true and then the accused has demonstrated that there is no excess income except 5% of the total assets, which is permissible as per the settled principles of law and therefore, the impugned judgment is perfectly justified. 12. He would further point out that PW10 who is the Police Inspector of Lokayukta, who has collected the information during the check period and ultimately formed an opinion that the accused has amassed assets more than his income, which is in excess of 15% than the known source of income, categorically admits that he has not properly accounted for the loan amount taken in the name of wife of the accused for purchase of JCB earthmover from Industrial Bank Basavanagudi, Bangalore, which portion of statement No.5 is confronted to PW10 and on his admission the same has been marked as Ex.D1, which has been properly appreciated by the learned trial Judge in the statement that has been furnished by the prosecution itself, whereby, the accused was not required to place any other evidence on record, as prosecution calculation itself did not exceed the required limit to hold accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of P.C. Act and thus, judgment of the trial Court is just and proper and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 13. In the light of the above rival contentions of the parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 13. In the light of the above rival contentions of the parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, following points would arise for consideration: 1) Weather the prosecution is successful enough in placing on record the statement of income as per the known sources to the prosecution and statement of expenditure when tallied, accused has amassed assets, which is disproportionate to the known source of income to the prosecution, so as to attract offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act? 2) Whether the prosecution is successful in establishing that appellant is holding only 5% excess assets, than the known source of income is suffering from legal infirmity or perversity and thus, calls for any interference? 3) If the answer to the point Nos.1 and 2 are in affirmative, what is the appropriate sentence? 4) What order? Regarding point Nos.1 and 2:- 14. In the case on hand, the admitted facts are as under: (i) Respondent/accused Veerabhadra S/o Chandram Salimani worked as Assistant Engineer in Karnataka State Electricity Board discharging his work in Kalaburagi and Aland. (ii) At the time of raid he worked as Assistant Executive Engineer/Nodal Officer 110/11 South MUSS, KPTCL, Kalaburagi. (iii) Check period was fixed from 20.11.1992 to 29.10.2013. (iv) As per the information collected by the PW10 during the check period following is the total assets and expenditure and total disproportionate asset: Total assets of the accused during the check period from 20.11.1998 to 29.10.2013 Rs. 2,07,73,558.74 Total expenditure of the accused during the check period Rs. 1,38,21,720.84 Total Assets and expenditure Rs. 3,45,95,279.58 Estimated total income Rs. 1,89,41,057.00 (-) Total disproportionate  Assets and expenditure of the accused during the check period Rs. 1,56,54,222.58 (v) According to prosecution PWs.1 and 2 are the mahazar witnesses. PW3 is the Sales Manager. PWs.4, 6, 9, 10 and 11 are Lokayukta Police Officers. PW5 is the Goldsmith. PW7 is the retired asst of RTO. PW8 is the Sanctioning Authority, Ramakrishna, Director of KPTCL. (vi) In the case on hand, assets held by the accused and expenditure shown by the prosecution are not disputed by the accused. (vii) Seizure of the excess assets under the panchnama are not seriously disputed. Value of the JCB earthmover and the same being registered in the name of the wife of the accused is not disputed. 15. (vi) In the case on hand, assets held by the accused and expenditure shown by the prosecution are not disputed by the accused. (vii) Seizure of the excess assets under the panchnama are not seriously disputed. Value of the JCB earthmover and the same being registered in the name of the wife of the accused is not disputed. 15. In view of the above admitted facts, the entire case of the prosecution hinges predominantly on the documentary evidence than oral evidence, though few contradictions are elicited in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. 16. What is to be noted in the cross-examination of PW10 is the portion of contents in statement - 5 at page No.82(B)(57), which is marked as Ex.D1. The said portion is culled out hereunder for ready reference: STATEMENT 5 BORROWING From Government or other financial institutions form 1998 to 29.10.2013( check period) S. No Name and Address of the lender Date of borrowing period and rate of interest Amount borrowed & made (Cash, Cheque, DD) Purpose of borrowing Referen ce to report to compet ent authorit y Description of Deed, Agreement of Pro- note etc., Loan amount repaid (Principle interest) with dates Balance outstand- ing Rem arks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 Shri Ram Transport Finance 101-105, First Floor B Wing Shiva Chambers Belapur, Navy Mumbai 400614 10.11.2007 18% 8,00,000 Cheque Payment to Creditor towards purchase of JCB No.KA32, M7483 Hypothecation Agreement 2007-08 Rs. 1,63,998 2008-09 Rs.8,03,998 Nil 2 Indusind Bank Ltd Basavanagud i Bangalore- 560 004 26.10.2007 18% 16,00,000 Cheque Purchase of JCB No. KA32, M5933 Hypothecation Agreement 2007-08 Rs.2,45,250 2008-09 Rs.5,88,600 2009-10 Rs.5,89,030 2010-11 Rs.7,08,930 Nil 3 Indusind Bank Ltd Basavanagud i Bangalore- 560 004 19.11.2009 18% 16,70,000 Cheque Purchase of JCB No. KA32, B1090 Hypothecation Agreement 2009-10 Rs.1,93,490 2010-11 Rs.5,79,960 2011-12 Rs.5,79,960 2012-13 Rs.5,61,960 01.04.13 to 30.10.203 Rs.2,25,000 NIL 4 Indusind Bank Ltd Basavanagud i Bangalore- 560 004 – Refinance 28.08.2013 18% 10,00,000 Cheque Purchase of Plot No.23 & 24 at Gulbarga Hypothecation Agreement 01.04.13 to 30.10.2013 Rs.42,000 9,79,000 5 HDFC Bank Ltd Raheza Plaza No.102 Bangalore- 560 002 30.03.2010 18% 17,00,000 Cheque Purchase of JCB No. KA32, B1838 Hypothecation Agreement 2009-10 Rs.NIL 2010-11 Rs.5,23,800 2011-12 Rs.5,26,200 2012-13 Rs.5,23,800 01.04.13 to 30.10.2013 Rs.3,09,234 1,78,470 6 HDFC Bank Ltd Raheza Plaza No.102 Bangalore- 560 002 05.03.2011 18% 17,66,000 Cheque Purchase of JCB No. KA32, B3679 Hypothecation Agreement 2010-11 Rs.47,280 2011-12 Rs.5,67,360 2012-13 Rs.5,67,360 01.04.13 to 30.10.2013 Rs.3,00,558 6,91,760 7 Indusind Bank Ltd Basavanagud i Bangalore- 560 004 10.12.2010 18% 17,65,000 Cheque Purchase of JCB No. KA32, B3277 Hypothecation Agreement 2010-11 Rs.1,52,920 2011-12 Rs.6,09,960 2012-13 Rs.6,09,960 01.04.13 to 30.10.2013 Rs.8,60,150 NIL 17. Therefore, the point of dispute between the prosecution and the accused in the case on hand is only to the extent of the value of the JCB earthmover being added on to the income of the accused in statement No.5. In other words, the prosecution has taken the value of the JCB earthmover is from the income of the accused, for which, there is no proper account. 18. The accused has explained about the said aspect of the matter by stating that by acquiring JCB earthmover, wife of the accused borrowed the loan from Industrial Bank Basavanagudi Branch, Bangalore. Admittedly, the said JCB earthmover is registered in the name of the wife of the accused. 19. PW.10 is the Police Inspector, Lokayukta Police Station, Kalaburagi, has actually arrived at finding that there is excess income. In his cross-examination, he has answered to a suggestion that there was a loan in the name of wife of the accused to the tune of Rs.16,70,000/-, he has answered that as per the statement of the Bank Manager, only Rs.10,00,000/- was sanctioned and not Rs.16,70,000/-. In his cross-examination, he has answered to a suggestion that there was a loan in the name of wife of the accused to the tune of Rs.16,70,000/-, he has answered that as per the statement of the Bank Manager, only Rs.10,00,000/- was sanctioned and not Rs.16,70,000/-. In that regard, statement No.5 has been marked, wherein, the witness admits total loan sanctioned is to the tune of Rs.16,70,000/- and not Rs.10,00,000/-. Therefore, there is a difference of Rs.6,70,000/- from the calculation of the prosecution and the accused. 20. Likewise, PW.10 has admitted that a sum of Rs.2,75,030/- has not been accounted by enquiring the neighbours of the accused. 21. He further admits that a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- was borrowed from Sriram Finance in the name of wife of the accused and the said loan was cleared by paying a sum of Rs.9,67,996/-. 22. However, he denied the suggestion that a sum of Rs.81,999/- has been shown as the expenditure without there being any proper reason. He also admits that while calculating the value of the JCB and other earthmovers, he has not shown the price by allowing 15% depreciation. 23. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, learned Trial Judge after detailed discussion of the evidence placed on record in paragraph No.55, summarized the details as under: ANNEXURE-A Assets held by the accused and his family members prior to check period as determined by the prosecution Rs.2,07,73,558.74/- INCOME TO BE ADDED 1. Rental Income of plot at Yalahanka for parking of vehicles Rs.2,75,630/- 2. Difference of sale of vehicles Rs.13,22,463/- 3. Bank loan Rs.6,70,000/- 4. Rental Income of JCB machines Rs.1,20,28,063/- 5. Total income to be added in the Income determined by the Prosecution Rs.1,42,96,156/- Total Income held by the accused as determined by this Court [Rs.1,89,41,057/- (as determined by the Prosecution + determined by this Court) Rs.1,42,96,156/- (as determined by this Court Rs.3,32,37,213/- ANNEXURE-B Assets held by the accused and his family members prior to check period as determined by the prosecution. Rs.2,07,73,558.74/- Assets to be deleted: Loan repayment Interest Sri Ram Finance; Rs.9,67,996/- less Rs. 7,99,000/- = Rs.1,68,999/- Rs.1,68,996.00/- Total Assets held by the accused as determined by the Court Rs.2,06,04,562.74/- ANNEXURE-C 01. Total Assets held by the accused as determined by the Court Rs.2,06,04,562.74/- 02. Total Expenditure incurred Rs.1,38,21,720.84/- 03. Total Rs.3,44,26,283.58/- 04. Source of income determined by the Court ( Rs. 7,99,000/- = Rs.1,68,999/- Rs.1,68,996.00/- Total Assets held by the accused as determined by the Court Rs.2,06,04,562.74/- ANNEXURE-C 01. Total Assets held by the accused as determined by the Court Rs.2,06,04,562.74/- 02. Total Expenditure incurred Rs.1,38,21,720.84/- 03. Total Rs.3,44,26,283.58/- 04. Source of income determined by the Court ( Rs. 1,89,41,057/- determined by the Prosecution + Rs. 1,42,96,156/- added by the Court) Rs.3,32,37,213.00/- 05. Total disproportionate assets and expenditure during the check period as determined by the Court Rs.11,89,070.58/- 24. As such, the learned Trial Judge has categorically recorded the finding from the above statement that a sum of Rs.11,89,070.58/- which is approximation remains unexplained though the learned Trial Judge inadvertently has stated that explained. However, there cannot be any dispute that in regard to the known source of income, the unexplained income is less than 5%. 25. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that the accused is to be acquitted if he fails to account for assets as against the known source of income to the prosecution to the extent of 10%. Since the assets held by the accused, which remain unexplained is less than 5%, which is for the check period of 14 years 11 months and 9 days i.e., from 20.11.1998 to 29.10.2013, benefit has been given by the learned Trial Judge to the accused based on the settled legal principles. Accordingly, the order of acquittal needs no interference that too in the appeal filed by the Lokayukta. View of this Court in this regard is fortified by judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Krishnanand vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, (1977) 1 SCC 816 and Union of India and Another vs. B.C. Chaturvedi, (1995) 6 SCC 749 . 26. Further, it is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that in an order of acquittal recorded by a duly constituted Court, acts as a double insulation for the accused. 27. Again, if two views are permissible on the same set of facts, view that is favourable to the accused must be preferred. 28. Yet another celebrated principle of criminal jurisprudence is that the prosecution has to travel a long distance between the phrase ‘may be proved’ to the ‘actual proof’. 29. 27. Again, if two views are permissible on the same set of facts, view that is favourable to the accused must be preferred. 28. Yet another celebrated principle of criminal jurisprudence is that the prosecution has to travel a long distance between the phrase ‘may be proved’ to the ‘actual proof’. 29. Further, having regard to the language employed by the statute in Section 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act, the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C.Act would gets attracted only in the event of the accused failing to account for the amount, which according to the prosecution is more than the known source of income. 30. In other words, if any of the income has been shown by the prosecution, which gets explained by the accused by placing cogent evidence, then such benefit should always go to the accused, inasmuch as, the phraseology used in the provision that the ‘sources known to the prosecution’. 31. Thus, applying the above settled principles of law to the case on hand, in the case on hand, having regard to the categorical finding recorded by the Trial Court that the unexplained income is less than 5%, the acquittal order passed by the Trial Judge needs no interference. 32. The appellant-Lokayukta is unable to controvert the finding recorded by the Trial Court nor is in a position to establish before this Court that finding of the Trial Court that unexplained amount is less than 5% is incorrect, this Court is of the considered opinion that the reasoning recorded by the Trial Court in the impugned judgment requires no interference, as the same could not be termed as suffering from legal infirmity or perversity. 33. In view of the foregoing discussion, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the negative. Regarding point No.3: 34. In view of finding of this Court on point Nos.1 and 2 in the negative, this point would not arise for consideration. Regarding point No.4: 35. From the foregoing discussion and the finding recorded by this Court on point Nos.1 to 3 as above, following order is passed: ORDER : Appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, stands discharged.