A public servant is expected to satisfactorily account for assets held disproportionate to their known source of income. The burden is on the accused to offer a plausible explanation and satisfy the court that the explanation is worthy of acceptance. Mere declaring income to the taxing authority or pointing to the source of someone else without accounting for it with the appropriate authorities is not sufficient. The assets in the hands of a public servant must have a legitimate source.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., to allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of acquittal, dated 20.02.2014 in C.C.No.82 of 2011 (old C.C.No.02/2008) on the file of the Court of the Special Court for the Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, at Chennai and convict the respondent/respondent for offence under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as charged, in the interest of justice.)

1. This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State against the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, where the respondent a public servant was acquitted from the charge of holding disproportionate asset to the known source of income, which is punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. The respondent/respondent while serving as an Assistant Commissioner of Police, Madurai, was prosecuted for holding Rs.17,56,179/- over and above his known source of income during the check period commencing from 01.01.1991 to 31.12.2000. As per the charge, his asset on 01.01.1991 was Rs.67,832/-. He has held asset worth of Rs.28,08,062.80 at the end of the check period, while his known source of income during the check period was only Rs.19,50,428/-.

3. The prosecution to prove the charges has examined 30 witnesses and marked 48 exhibits. The respondent in defence has examined 5 witnesses, marked 14 exhibits.

4. On appreciating the evidence, the trial Court has acquitted the respondent holding that considering 18 years of service of the respondent as on 01.01.1991; the income derived from his ancestral property; the rental income from the building; and the agricultural income earned by him during the check period; the alleged asset as valued by the prosecution cannot be considered as disproportionate.

5. The trial Court has acquitted the respondent saying he has satisfactorily accounted for the asset in his possession through oral and documentary evidence. According to the trial Court, the evidence adduced by the respondent/accused shows that there is no disproportionate asset acquired by him during the check period.

6. For better appreciation of the facts, the below table is in respect of the statements of asset, income and expenditure indicating the case of the prosecution, the case of the defence and the finding of the trial Court is provided.

STATEMENT-I

As per the Final Report (Rs.)	As per explanation given by the accused (Ex.P47) (Rs.)	As per the finding of the trial Court (Rs.)
67,832-20	92,332-00	4,43,532-00

STATEMENT-II

As per the Final Report (Rs.)	As per explanation given by the accused (Ex.P47) (Rs.)	As per the finding of the trial Court (Rs.)
28,75,895-00	16,90,381-00	15,90,557-00

 STATEMENT-III

As per the Final Report (Rs.)	As per explanation given by the accused (Ex.P47) (Rs.)	As per the finding of the trial Court (Rs.)
19,50,428-00	26,48,102-00	31,76,096-0

STATEMENT-IV

As per the Final Report (Rs.)	As per explanation given by the accused (Ex.P47) (Rs.)	As per the finding of the trial Court (Rs.)
8,98,545-00	6,03,196-00	9,37,395-00

STATEMENT-V

As per the Final Report (Rs.)	As per explanation given by the accused (Ex.P47) (Rs.)	As per the finding of the trial Court (Rs.)
28,08,063-0	15,98,049-00,	11,47,025-00

STATEMENT-VI

As per the Final Report (Rs.)	As per explanation given by the accused (Ex.P47) (Rs.)	As per the finding of the trial Court (Rs.)
10,51,883-00	20,44,906-00	22,38,701-00

STATEMENT-VII