The main legal point established in the judgment is the burden of proof on the accused to account for assets disproportionate to known sources of income under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

R.C. Mishra, J.

1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by :-This appeal has been preferred against the judgment-dated 03/10/2001, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the 1988 Act") and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default, to suffer R.I. for 1 year. Further, a direction was also given to confiscate the assets found disproportionate to the known sources of appellant's income.

2. During the check period from 1st January, 1984 to 25th Feb. 1994, the petitioner had remained posted in various Telecom Offices at Jabalpur as Junior Accounts Officer, Accounts Officer and Senior Accounts officer. In this period, he had received the salary and other allowances as reflected in the statements (Ex.P/1.1 to P/1.4, Ex.P/2.1 & P/2.2, Ex.P/3.1 to P/3.4 and Ex. P/4.1 and P/4.2). He had invested a sum of Rs. 1000/- in Share (Ex.P/11) and spent (a) Rs.20,155/- to purchase a Motorcycle (b) Rs.4150/- to purchase a cooler (c) Rs.8950/- to purchase Luna Super and (d) Rs.800/- towards TMT Test and Rs.950/- and Rs. 1745/- on LPG connection and cylinders. These facts are not in dispute.

3. The prosecution case, in short, may be stated thus:

(i) While working as a public servant in the aforesaid official capacities, during the check period, the appellant had amassed pecuniary resources and property disproportionate to his known sources of income. On 4/2/94, upon the corresponding information, the then S.P. (CBI) Jabalpur registered a case by recording the FIR (Ex.P/49) and entrusted the investigation to Inspector Dhirendra Kumar (PW14). He, in turn, conducted a search on 25/ 2/1994 at the appellant's residence located at 813/6, Shiv Nagar, Garha, Jabalpur and seized documents described in the list (Ex.P/ 34) and valuables described in the list (Ex.P/35). The Inspector also searched the office chamber of the appellant and seized certain documents as per list (Ex.P/36).

(ii) During investigation, Padam Singh (PW3), an Assistant Engineer posted as Assistant Surveyor (Works) in the CPWD, Jabalpur, was requested to ascertain value of the house owned by the appellant.

(iii) Outcome of the investigation indicated that the appellant was found to be in possession of property/assets disproportionate to his known sources of income earned during the check period to the extent of Rs.3,31,382.46.

4. The appellant abjured the guilt. He not only furnished, in his examination, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, elaborate explanation for the disproportion in question but also sought to prove the corresponding facts by examining himself and 17 other witnesses as against 14 witnesses examined by the prosecution. Upon a critical appreciation of the entire evidence on record, learned trial Judge, for the reasons assigned in the impugned judgment, proceeded to hold that the appellant had not been able to satisfactorily account for acquisition of disproportionate assets to the extent of Rs. 1,22,000/- and not that of Rs.3,31,382.46 as alleged by the prosecution. However, he was further of the opinion that, even after giving a benefit of 10% of the income in view of the principle laid down in Krishnanand Agnihotri vs. State of M.P. (AIR 1977 SC 796), the disproportionate assets would have been worth Rs.86,900/-.

5. Legality and propriety of the conviction in question have been challenged primarily on the following grounds -

(a) Non-consideration of the explanations given by the appellant in respect of every questioned item of the income, expenditure, movable and immovable assets in a proper perspective and;

(b) Mistakes in calculation.

6. According to learned counsel for the appellant, his conviction for being found in possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income to the extent of Rs.86,900/-, is not sustainable as even without giving margin of 10% of the total income, acquisition of additional pec