The main legal point established is that in cases of disproportionate assets, the calculation of total income and surplus income is crucial, and if the surplus income is less than 10% of the total income, the presumption against the accused would fail.

JUDGMENT

1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 CrPC have been peferred claiming the following reliefs:

"It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed, judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27.11.2006 passed by the Learned Special Judge Prevention Of Corruption Act Cases, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 166/97 may kindly be quashed and set aside and Appellant may be acquitted for the alleged offences."

2. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 27.11.2006 passed the learned Special Judge Prevention Of Corruption Act Cases, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 166/97 whereby the learned Court convicted the appellant's late husband, Uda Ram, for the offences under sections 13 (1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and awarded him a sentence of 1 year S.I. along with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of payment of the same, he was to further undergo 6 months S.I.

3. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the appellant are that an F.I.R, bearing F.I.R. No. 32/93 (Ex.P/61) was registered by the A.C.B., Sri Ganganagar against Late Uda Ram on the basis of a preliminary enquiry bearing no. 8/91, wherein it was alleged that Uda Ram, between the years 1991 - 1993 while posted as 'Bhu Prabandhan Adhikari' miused his official position, and acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, at the time. And that, the investigating officer arrived at a finding that Uda Ram's valid income during the course of the check-period was Rs. 6,35,664/- whereas he acquired properties in his own name and in the name of his family members to the tune of Rs. 12,01,000/- and that thus, properties valuing Rs. 5,65,336/- were found to be in excess of the known sources of income. And that, accordingly a charge sheet was filed against him for the offences under Sections 13(1) (e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the learned Court framed charges, and subsequently upon trial convicted Late Uda Ram.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution examined as many as 25 witnesses and that his savings were shown as 1/3rd of his income, whereas it should have been more than half of his income. And that, the income of wife, from embroidery, stitching and dairy farming, which was her independent income and the income of his son, Arvind, who was engaged in the business of Oil, was incorrectly tallied along with his income. And that, it was in fact, his son who purchased the plot, bearing No. F-74 and that it was his wife who purchased the plot No. SF-184 in Balotra out of her own income, by taking a loan from R.F.C. and then sold the same and purchased an industrial plot in Sri Ganganagar and established an industry, and that the installments of R.F.C. were re-paid from the income derived from the said industry. And that, R.I.I.C.O. and R.F.C. granted subsidy to his wife, figures of which have not been accounted for in the total income of Late Uda Ram for the concerned time period. Furthermore, learned counsel contends that the evaluation of the construction of the factory was excessive, because the factory was constructed under Late Uda Ram's supervision, and that was the reason, the construction charges were 20-25% less than the P.W.D. valuation of the same.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that Late Uda Ram had an ancestral home at Nagore, which was given on rent from time to time, and out of that, a sum of Rs. 78,000/- was earned from the same, and that Rs. 38,000/- was earned from the sale of their car, both of which were also not included in the income of Uda Ram.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant thus submitted that the learned Court below therefore incorrectly calculated the total income of Uda Ram, and erred in holding that Uda Ram's income was in an excess of Rs. 3,38,489/- of his known sources of income.

7. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submit