IMPORTANT POINT
Conviction of a public servant u/s. 5(1)(e) r/ws 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1947, on the charge that the accused has acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income is not sustainable when the prosecution has not satisfactorily established the charge.

JUDGMENT

S. Ratnavel Pandian, J. – This appeal is directed by the appellant Mr. P. Satyanarayan Murty challenging the correctness of the judgment made in Criminal Appeal No. 1150 of 1987 on the file of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissing the appeal and confirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) but reducing the sentence of imprisonment from two years to till rising of the court while retaining the fine of Rs. 20,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.

2. The charge against the appellant is that the appellant being a public servant employed as Assistant Agricultural Officer in Agricultural Department during 1966 and June 1977 and thereafter as Regional Transport Officer between 25.6.1977 and 15.9.1983, in the Transport Department acquired assets which were disproportionate to his known sources of income and that he was found in possession of pecuniary resources of property in his name and the names of his father P. Venkata Reddy and his wife Smt. P. Satyavathi Devi of a value of Rs. 5,39,050.64 for which he could not give satisfactory account. The facts of the case are set out in detail in the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court. Hence we feel that it is not necessary to repeat the same in its entirety.

3. For the disposal of the appeal, it would be sufficient if we examine the correctness of the finding of the High Court, according to which the total unaccounted disproportionate asset was to the value of Rs. 93,937.24 as against the finding of the Trial Court at Rs. 2, 27, 937.24. As rightly pointed out by Shri P.P. Rao, the learned senior counsel for the appellant the questions that arise for consideration are (1) whether the finding of the High Court is supported by legal evidence and (2) whether the appellant has satisfactorily accounted his total asset, thereby showing that there is no disproportionate asset.

4. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the High Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in the proper perspective with reference to the documentary evidence but on the other hand it has conveniently omitted some material part of the evidence which evidence if taken into consideration would explain the assets of the appellant. He further submits that the finding of the High Court that certain items of properties, standing in the names of the appellants father and wife are benami in nature and the ostensible owner of these properties is only the appellant is totally opposed to both oral and documentary evidence. Mr. Rao gave a detailed note showing certain amounts under four heads, totalling upto Rs. 97,968/- which, according to him, ought to have been deducted from the total value of the assets of the appellant. They are :

 (1) error in the calculation of sinking of the well Rs. 11,686/-

 (2) the error committed in calculating the income from leasehold land Rs. 42,282/-

 (3) the failure on the part of the courts below to take into consideration of the income from the agricultural produce namely pulses and to add that income to his known sources of income Rs. 15,000/-

 (4) the value of the assets wrongly included on the ground of benami transaction Rs. 29,000/-

Total: Rs. 97,968/-

5. According to the learned counsel, if the above total sum of Rs. 97,968/- is deducted from the total value of the appellants asset the entire alleged disproportion of assets not only gets wiped out but also the appellant will be left with a surplus of Rs. 4,030.76. even without giving the margin of 10% of the total income which, according to the learned counsel, would work out to Rs. 51,696.67.

6. We shall now scrutinise whether the contentions of the learned counsel are supported by cogent and reliable evidence and whether there is any error committed by the courts below in calculating the assets of the appellant.

7. First of all we take up t