The judgment emphasizes that a public servant's known sources of income must be intimated in accordance with the applicable law, and assets disproportionate to known sources of income can lead to conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Abhay M. Naik, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant against the judgment dated 30th December 2005 convicting thereby the Appellant under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. Facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are that the Appellant was holding the post of Sub Engineer and Assistant Engineer in the Public Health Engineering Department of Madhya Pradesh during the check period from 15.7.1978 to 9.2.1994. Case of the prosecution is that he earned during this period in all Rs. 3,86,966/-from the known sources of income, whereas he was found to have possessed Rs. 7,95,243/- and was thus found to have acquired disproportionate income to his known sources. Accordingly, he was found guilty and was convicted for the aforesaid offence.

3. This case depicts an extremely sorry state of affairs that the prosecution has virtually examined all the defence witnesses as witnesses of prosecution. Most of the witnesses of prosecution have virtually supported the accused on facts. Illustratively, Kapoorchand (P.W.1), who happened to be brother-in-law of the accused, has stated in chief examination on behalf of the prosecution that he had advanced Rs. 10,000/-to the accused for the purchase of gun. Ramgopal (P.W.4) is brother of the accused, who has stated in chief examination that he had advanced Rs. 20,000/-and Rs. 50,000/-in the year 1988/1989 for construction of house. Gopal Agrawal (P.W.5), who is the relative of accused, has stated in his chief examination that he had provided Rs. 75,000/-to the accused without interest in the year 1989 for construction of house. Similarly, Ramjilal Agrawal (P.W.6) has stated that he had advanced Rs. 20,000/-in 1987 as loan to the accused, which has been repaid. These are all versions in the chief examination itself. Brajesh Pradhan (P.W.7) happened to be younger brother of the accused, who, too, has been examined by the prosecution. This witness in the chief examination has stated that he had advanced Rs. 20,000/-on 9.9.1998 and Rs. 15,000/-on 1.4.1999 to the accused in cash for construction of house. Out of this, Rs. 20,000/-were provided as financial assistance for construction. This witness has further stated that there occurred a family partition in the year 1987, wherein Rs. 1,45,000/-was allotted in the share of the accused. Out of this, Rs. 60,000/-was immediately paid by their father to the accused. Remaining amount was paid by bank draft of Rs. 40,000/-and Rs. 45,000/-. These witnesses despite their support to the accused were not declared hostile and were not cross examined by the prosecution after obtaining due permission from the court. It is not understandable from the record that why did the prosecution examine all such witnesses, who otherwise might have been produced in defence. It is also un-understandable that why they were not declared hostile in view of their support to the accused and why they were not cross examined. In the light of their conduct in the absence of declaration of such witnesses as hostile, obviously, the chief examinations of such witnesses are binding on the prosecution and the evidence on record is liable to be appreciated accordingly.

4. Main defences of the Appellant are:

(i) Entire income of the Appellant from the known sources was not properly worked out. His salary from Aug. 1980 to Aug. 83 was not counted and thus was not included in Rs. 3,86,966/-, which is mentioned as the income from known sources.

(ii) Appellant had complied with the provisions of M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. Intimation was duly given and sanction was duly obtained as required.

(iii) While assessing the value of assets possessed by the Appellant during the check period, over estimation was made in various items.

(iv) 'Stridhan' of Appellant's wife was also included in his assets, whereas the same was exclusive property of his wife.

(v) 10% of the variation to the income from known sources is permissibl