Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 12408

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B V L N Chakravarthi, J
K. Obi Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of AP rep by its PP Hyd ACB Insp of Police – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No: 1461/2006

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: O Kailashnath Reddy
For the Respondents: S. Syam Sunder Rao

In disproportionate assets cases, probable contributions from family sources must be included in income calculations, and prosecution’s statistical abstracts are inadmissible under Section 65(g) of the Evidence Act if the authors are not examined and lack personal knowledge of the source records.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(1)(e) and 13(2) - Disproportionate assets - Determination of income - Inclusion of family contributions - The court must consider contributions by family members toward capital assets if they are probable and supported by evidence of family income sources like agricultural land and cattle business even in the absence of formal accounts - Inclusion of 20% margin as per government circulars is mandatory in evaluating income for disproportionate assets cases. (Paras 13, 39, 42, 43).

(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 65(g) - Admissibility of abstracts - Abstracts of public documents prepared by persons who are not examined, and who have no personal knowledge of the underlying records, do not satisfy the requirements of Section 65(g) and cannot be relied upon to determine the income of an accused. (Paras 28, 32, 51-53).

Facts of the case:
The appellant, a public servant, was convicted for possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The appellant contended that his father contributed significantly to the construction of his house and that his agricultural income was underestimated by the prosecution, who relied on inadmissible statistical abstracts.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the evidence regarding the joint family income from agricultural and dairy activities was credible. It held that the prosecution failed to prove the admissibility of the statistical documents under Section 65(g) and failed to include legitimate family contributions to the house construction, rendering the finding of disproportionate assets unsustainable.

Issues: 1. Whether the assets possessed were disproportionate to known sources of income. 2. Whether the statistical documentation relied upon by the prosecution was admissible and reliable. 3. Whether contributions by family members should be included in the income calculations.

Ratio Decidendi: An accused in a disproportionate assets case is entitled to include probable contributions from joint family resources in his income. Statistical reports for income estimation cannot be admitted under Section 65(g) of the Evidence Act unless the authors or those with personal knowledge of the records are examined, particularly when the accused challenges the validity of such data.

Result: Appeal allowed. The conviction and sentence were set aside.

Table of Content
1. overview of charges and procedural history in disproportionate assets case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. appellant's contentions regarding income calculation and government bonus mandate. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
3. respondent's stance on evidentiary reliability in corruption cases. (Para 17 , 18)
4. admissibility and evidentiary weight of family contributions and agricultural income documentation. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)
5. analysis of section 65(g) evidence act regarding statistical abstracts and calculation of disproportionate assets. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58)
6. final acquittal based on re-evaluation of income and asset proportionality. (Para 59 , 60)

The Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T:

Heard Sri O.Kailashnath Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S.Syam Sunder Rao, learned Special Public Prosecutor-cum-Standing Counsel representing the respondent/ACB.

2. The appeal is preferred by the convict/accused, challenging the judgment dated 19.10.2006 delivered by the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases at Hyderabad, in C.C.No.13/1997.

3. The appellant is the accused in the case. The Special Judge convicted the appellant for the offence U/secs.13(1)(e)r/w.13(2) of the P.C.Act, 1988 and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two (02) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months for the above offence.

4. For convenience’s sake, the parties are referred to as arraigned in the trial Court.

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:

5. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant/accused worked as Sanitary Inspector in the office of Ananthapur Munipality from 23.07.1974 to 27.10.1994 in various capacities. The accused being a public servant, acquired assets disproportionate to the known sources of his income. Therefore, he committed the offence punishable U/s.13(1)(e) of the P.C.Act, 1988.

6. The accused was in possession of assets worth of Rs.8,15,532.70 paise during the above check period. The income of the appellant was Rs.4,42,193.50 paise. The expenditure incurred was Rs.3,57,287.80 paise. Therefore, likely savings of the accused is Rs.84,905.70 paise, but the appellant had assets worth of Rs.7,30,627/- i.e., disproportionate to his known sources of income. The accused could not satisfactorily account for, though he was given opportunity. The Government accorded sanction for prosecution of the appellant.

7. The Special Court charged the accused for the offence U/s.13(1)(e) r/w.13(2) of the P.C.Act, 1988. The charge was explained to the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION:

8. The prosecution to substantiate the charge, examined P.Ws-1 to 45 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-18, apart from M.O-1.

9. The accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing against him from the evidence for the prosecution. He denied the incriminating circumstances. D.Ws-1 to 6 were examined for the defence. Exs.D-1 to D-13 were got marked for the defence.

FINDING OF THE SPECIAL COURT:

10. The Special Court on consideration of the above evidence, convicted the accused for the offence U/s.13(1)(e) r/w.13(2) of the P.C.Act, 1988, and sentenced him as mentioned above. Hence, the appeal came to be preferred by the accused, challenging the judgment of the Special Court on various grounds.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

11. Sri O.Kailashnath Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish that the appellant possessed assets that are disproportionate to the known sources of income. Then only, the burden shifts to accused to provide a satisfactory account of the source.

12.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 12408

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHB V L N Chakravarthi, JK. Obi Reddy – AppellantVersusState of AP rep by its PP Hyd ACB Insp of Police – RespondentCRIMINAL APPEAL No: 1461/2006

In disproportionate assets cases, probable contributions from family sources must be included in income calculations, and prosecution’s statistical abstracts are inadmissible under Section 65(g) of the Evidence Act if the authors are not examined and lack personal knowledge of the source records.

Cases Referred (2)

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B V L N Chakravarthi, J
K. Obi Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of AP rep by its PP Hyd ACB Insp of Police – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No: 1461/2006