MAIN POINTS
An accused cannot be tried for a charge different from the one framed against him.
‘Known sources of income’ means income received from any lawful source and intimated in accordance with law, rules, orders for the time being applicable.
Prosecution first has to establish assets disproportionate to known sources of income. Then only the public servant may be required to account for the same.

JUDGMENT

AMITAVA ROY, J.

The appellant hereby seeks to overturn the judgment and order dated 09.01.2014 rendered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No.1573 of 2000 thereby affirming his conviction under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, hereinafter to be referred to as the “Act”) and sentence to undergo R.I. for two years with fine of Rs.20,000/-with default sentence of R.I. of six months as recorded by the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) in his verdict dated 07.06.2000 rendered in Special Case No.2/1996.

2. We have heard Mr. Harsh Parashar, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The genesis of the prosecution lies in a complaint lodged by one Khuman Singh, resident of Betul Ganj alleging that the appellant, who at the relevant time was holding the office of Sub-Engineer, Irrigation Department, Mahi Project Patelabad, Jhabua, by abusing his post, had acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. FIR No.136 Dated 27.10.1992 was registered by Inspector, S.P. Establishment, Divisional Lokayukt, Office Bhopal and on the completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was laid to the effect that during the check period between 1970 to 1992, after adjusting the income and expenditure of the appellant, he was found to have acquired, by applying corrupt and illegal means while acting as a public servant, assets valued Rs.7,94,033/-which was disproportionate to his known sources of income and had thereby committed an offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Act.

4. The Trial Court framed charge under the aforementioned sections of law, punishable under Section 19 of the Act to which the appellant pleaded “not guilty” and demanded trial.

5. As the charge would disclose, the appellant during the check period was shown to have earned total income of Rs.1,95,637/-and after accounting for an expenditure of 60% thereof towards household needs, he had a saving of Rs.79,045/-. However, having regard to his bank deposits and his investments in plots and a house that he had built on one of those, he had expended thereby an amount of Rs.9,89,670/-during the said period and thus was possessed of assets to the tune of Rs.7,94,033/-which was disproportionate to his known sources of income.

6. At the trial, the prosecution adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. Its witnesses included amongst others Inspector A.J. Khan (PW6), the investigating officer and Inspector, Roop Singh Solanki (PW2) who did follow up the investigation taking the baton from PW6. As the testimony of these two witnesses is of decisive bearing and demonstrable from the analysis of the evidence as embarked upon by the Courts below, reference thereto is indispensable.

7. A.J. Khan (PW6) stated that after the registration of the First Information Report, he conducted the preliminary investigation and ascertained amongst others, the sources of income of the appellant during the check period and most importantly admitted not to have added his agricultural income and the pay for various periods, before handing over the investigation to PW2.

8. Roop Singh Solanki (PW2) who took over the investigation from PW6 stated that particulars of the income and expenditure for the check period were drawn up by him and were handed over to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Commissioner, Bhopal. According to him, the total income of the appellant from pay during the check period was Rs.1,94,365/-which together with the interest on the amount deposited in the bank was Rs.1,95,637/-. According to this witness, if 60% expenditure towards household necessities of the appellant and his family is deducted therefrom, his saving would be of Rs.79,045/-. In that premise, the expenditure of the appellant having been recorded to be Rs.9,89,670/-, the charge of disproportionate asset unrelatable t