In a disproportionate assets case, the prosecution must prove the source of assets acquired by the accused's family members. If the accused provides plausible explanations for independent income or gifts, the burden is not met unless the prosecution produces concrete evidence to the contrary and successfully challenges such explanations.

JUDGMENT :

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

This Criminal Appeal is filed to set aside the judgment dated 1.25.08.2015 passed in C.C.No.02 of 2007 by the learned II Additional District Judge for CBI Cases, Coimbatore.

2.The respondent/accused in C.C.No.2 of 2007 was prosecuted by the appellant. The Trial Court, by its judgment dated 25.08.2015 dismissed the case and discharged the respondent from all charges after full fledged trial. Against which, the present appeal filed.

3.The case of the prosecution is that the respondent L.Kumar, Superintendent of Central Excise, Salem Commissionerate joined Central Excise on 10.07.1975 as Inspector of Central Excise at Coimbatore Division-I. He got promoted as Superintendent of Central Excise and joined at Customs Bonded Warehouse, Salem Steel Plant on 12.04.1993 and worked subsequently in Salem Division Office till 09.05.1996. During the period from May 1996 to 29.01.2003, he worked in various places. From 30.01.2003 to 13.08.2003. he worked in Inland Container Depot, Tiruppur.

In August 2003 he was transferred to Salem Commissionerate and attached to Statistics Section of Head Quarters. The respondent L.Kumar, during the period between 1980 and 1991 purchased seven properties, out of which four in his name and the same intimated to the Department in his Immovable Property Returns. The remaining three properties purchased by him in the year 1991 in the name of his wife Mallika, a dependent not intimated to the Department in the Immovable Property Returns. He purchased properties between the years 1993 and 2004 in the name of his wife Mallika, daughters namely Sivavasavi and Vijayavani and also his son Master Vikram Balaji. Hence, this period i.e. 01.01.1993 to 09.07.2004 was taken as the Check Period for calculation of Income, Expenditure and Assets of L.Kumar and his family members. During this period he incurred major expenditures for education of his children, purchase of vehicles etc. besides investments in properties, thereby the respondent L.Kumar acquired assets by illegal means beyond his known sources of income during the Check Period from 01.01.1993 to 09.07.2004.

4.Assets at the beginning of the check period i.e., as on 01.01.1993 in the name of the respondent and his wife, seven immovable properties listed in Statement A to the value of Rs.4,78,000/-. Movable assets shown in Statement A1 is 35 items and the value has been given as Rs.27,100/-. Assets at the end of the check period shown in Statement B, 16 immovable properties listed to the value of Rs.43,46,962/-. Five properties purchased in Kumarasamipatti Village, Salem in the name of his first daughter K.Sivavasavi not intimated to the Department and further, Sivavasavi was not having an independent source of income and she completed her Graduation in Medicine in the year 1998-1999. Likewise, the property purchased in Yercaud and farmland in Veerapandi village in the year 2004 was purchased in the name of his second daughter K.Vijayavani, who graduated in Medicine in the year 2003-2004 and she had no independent source of income. Four properties purchased in the name of his wife K.Mallika in Chengalpattu District and land with