1. This appeal is directed against the sentence and conviction imposed on the accused by the Trial Court in Special C.C.No.24 of 2011 on the file of IX Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai vide judgment dated 13.10.2015 for possessing disproportionate assets beyond the known source of income.

2. The appellant herein 'Captain' Priyanath Misra of Mercantile Marine Department while working as Nautical Surveyor at Tuticorin came under the scanner of CBI when they received reliable information that during the period 2000-2009 he had amassed assets disproportionate to his known source of income to tune of Rs.45 lakhs in his name and in the name of his family members.

3. Based on the said information, the First Information Report was registered by CBI on 29.01.2010. After the conclusion of the investigation, the prosecution has laid final report disclosing that the appellant herein, was working as a Deputy Nautical Surveyor in Director General of Shipping during the check period from 01.04.2000 to 10.08.2009. The assets held by the accused at the end date of check period 10.08.2009 was Rs.1,00,02,180/- whereas the assets held by him on the commencement of the check period 01.04.2000 was Rs.29,44,423/-. The income of the appellant during the check period was assessed at Rs.58,84,433/- after deducting the expenditures incurred by the appellant during the check period and the savings likely would have been made by the appellant, it was found that the appellant had disproportionate assets of Rs.90,37,966/- which is 153.59% over and above the known source of income.

4. The Trial Court has framed charge under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for the offence of possessing property disproportionate to the known source of income but not satisfactorily accounted.

5. To prove the charge the prosecution has examined 25 witnesses and marked 127 Exhibits. In defence the accused has examined 3 witnesses and marked 9 Exhibits. After considering the evidence let in by the prosecution as well as the defence, the explanation about the source in respect of the assets held by him. The trial Court has held that the disproportionate asset possessed by the appellant at the end of the check period is Rs.78,30,396/- which is 131.79% excess to the known source of income. Having held so, the trial Court found the appellant guilty and convicted him to undergo 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1 lakh in default to undergo 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction appeal is filed on the ground that the sanction to prosecute is defective and not valid in the eye of law. The amount found in the fixed deposit is sourced from salary, T.A, D.A and other allowances. Besides from the income derived from the ancestral agricultural land. The honorarium and other allowances received by the appellant were not taken into account by the prosecution as known source of income. The fixed deposits which were renewed periodically from the income prior to the check period were taken as new investments during the check period. The presumptive expenses is exorbitant. The expenses of the appellant son Abilash Misra who is an inmate in the home for the mentally disabled person were met out by his brother, sister and close relatives. The fees and other charges for his daughter study were made through the financial assistance from her uncle, brothers and sisters therefore the amount spent on his son and daughter education ought not to have been added in the statement of expenditure. The expenses incurred to pay LIC policy was from out of his salary. The 30% deduction for presumptive expenditure from out of his gross salary is incorrect and it should be from the net salary and the presumptive expenditure of 30% has no justification or reasoning while all the major expenses like Income Tax, pro