IMPORTANT POINT
In prosecution of a public servant for offence u/s. 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, it is not the mere acquisition of property that constitutes an offence but it is the failure to satisfactorily account for such possession that makes the possession objectionable as offending the law.

JUDGMENT

S. Ratnavel Pandian, J. - The appellant M. Krishna Reddy has preferred this Criminal Appeal challenging the correctness of the judgment rendered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No. 660 of 1988 dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant and confirming his conviction under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as recorded by the Trial Court; but reducing the sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment to six months and enhancing the fine of Rs. 30,000/- imposed b)' the Trial Court to Rs. 50,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.

2. The appellant took his trial before the Trial Court on the accusation that he being a public servant, to wit working in various capacities under the Government of Andhra Pradesh as tracer, Draftsman. Assistant Engineer, Chief City Planner of Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad etc., during the period from 1958 to 24-81983, acquired assets in his name and in the names of his dependants and was found in possession of pecuniary resources of property of a value of Rs. 7,02,848.00 which was disproportionate to his known sources of income.

3. As the facts of the case are well set out in the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court, we feel that it is not necessary to proliferate the same.

For the disposal of this appeal it would be sufficient, if we examine the correctness of the findings of the High Court as regards the value of the disproportionate assets, the appellant is found to have been in possession. The Trial Court on the basis of the evidence produced before it, found the value of the disproportionate assets at Rs. 3, 47, 601.49. On appeal the High Court has reduced the value of the disproportionate assets to Rs. 2, 37, 842.00. Therefore, we have to now examine as to whether there is any error in the judgment of the High Court in arriving at this disproportionate assets and whether the appellant has satisfactorily accounted this alleged disproportionate assets.

4. Mr. P.P. Rao: learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant took us very meticulously through the recorded evidence and strenuously contended that the High Court has gone wrong in rendering its finding that there is disproportionate asset to the tune of Rs. 2, 37, 842.00 and that the evidence available 6n record is more than sufficient to satisfy this Court that the High Court has committed an error in arriving at the figure by conveniently ignoring certain material pieces of evidence, standing in favour of the appellant and has also wrongly holding that some of the items of the landed properties as benami in complete violation of the law. Now we shall take up certain items of assets one by one, the value of which according to the appellant, should be deducted from the value of the disproportionate assets, as found by the High Court and find out whether the claim of the appellant is supported by reliable evidence. Before adverting to the facts of the case and considering the submissions of the learned counsel, we shall give a brief note of the law on this subject.

5. An analysis of Section 5(1)(e) of the Act, 1947 which corresponds to Section 13(1)(e) of the new Act of 1988 shows that is not the mere acquisition of property that constitutes an offence under the provisions of the Act but it is the failure to satisfactorily account for such possession that makes the possession objectionable as offending the law.

6. To substantiate a charge under section 5(1)(e)of the Act, the prosecution must prove the following ingredients, namely, (1) the prosecution must establish that the accused is a public servant, (2) the nature and extent of the pecuniary resources or property which were found in his possession (3) it must be proved as to what were his known sources of income, i.e. known to the prosecution, and (4) it must prove, quite objectively, that such resources or property found in possession of the accuse