The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the nature and extent of the accused's pecuniary resources and objectively prove that the sources of income or property found in possession of the accused are disproportionate to his known sources of income.

JUDGMENT :

V.K. SHUKLA, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the Judgment dated 24-7-2008, passed by the Special Judge (appointed under the Prevention of Corruption Act)/First Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, in Special Criminal Case No. 07/1996, whereby the Court below has found the appellant to be guilty of offences punishable under section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). The appellant has consequently been sentenced to R.I. for a term of two years with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, an additional imprisonment for a term of six months.

2. The prosecution case against the appellant in brief is that the appellant at the relevant time was working as Sub Engineer in the Irrigation Department. A search was conducted in the appellant's residence on 26-3-1992. The criminal law was set at motion and after investigation a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant before the Court below under the provisions of the Act, according to which during the check period between 1976 to 26-3-1992 the appellant's income was stated to be Rs. 23,07,545/- and his expenditure was found to be Rs. 47,54,471/- and, therefore, he was found to have acquired disproportionate assets of Rs. 24,46,926/-. The prosecution examined 22 witnesses while in defence the appellant examined nine witnesses.

3. During the trial, the trial Court found that necessary tabulation chart, Form-H, which is required to be filed by the prosecution along with the charge-sheet had not been filed by them along with the charge-sheet and this chart was ultimately produced by the investigating officer, Naresh Singh Saiyam (PW-18) before the Court at the time of his examination and was marked as Ex.D-71. The Court below on examining the aforesaid tabulation chart in paragraph 20 of its judgment held that the income of the appellant during the check period was Rs. 17,29,980/- and his expenditure during the check period was Rs. 37,47,472/- and, therefore, he was in possession of disproportionate assets worth Rs. 20,17,492/-.

4. After analyzing the evidence on record and the statement of the investigating officer and after deleting the income of the company concerned, the trial Court ultimately recorded a finding in paragraph 52 of its judgment to the effect that the income of the appellant during the check period was Rs. 6,24,452/- and his expenditure during the check period was Rs. 8,73,547/- and, therefore, he was in possession of disproportionate assets worth Rs. 2,49,095/-. The aforesaid aspect is apparent from a perusal of paragraphs 52, 99 and 100 of the judgment of Court below.

5. The trial Court on recording a finding to the aforesaid effect has held that the appellant guilty of offences punishable under the provisions of the Act and sentenced him to R.I. for a term of two years with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- as stated in the preceding paragraph of this judgment.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Ku. Pallavi Khare submits that the appellant has been found to be in possession of disproportionate assets amounting to Rs. 2,49,095/-. She submits that the Court below while recording the aforesaid finding has totally ignored the fact that during the check period the appellant had sold two houses situated on Plot Nos. 61 and 61-A, of Katanga Colony, Jabalpur to Rajesh Kumar Awasthi (PW-5) and his wife Mrs. Shashi Kiran Awasthi (PW-13) and from the sale thereof had received a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/-. It is stated that the Court below has treated the income of the appellant from the sale of the houses during the check period to be only Rs. 50,000/- instead of Rs. 3,50,000/- and in case the aforesaid income of Rs. 3,00,000/- is added to the income of the appellant during the check period, the finding of the Court below regarding possession of disproportionate assets would become erroneous. She submits that she, therefore, confines her argument only