The Court made the following:

O R A L J U D G M E N T:

Heard Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, 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 in the case, challenging the judgment dated 07.12.2007 rendered by the Special Court for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada, in C.C.No.8/1998. The appellant was convicted for the offence U/s.13(2) r/w. section 13 (1)(e) of the P.C.Act, 1988. The appellant was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two (02) years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only), in default, suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they were arraigned before the Special Court.

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:

4. The case of the prosecution is that accused worked as Government Servant as Warden in Social Welfare Department from 16.07.1973 to 30.09.1995 i.e., during the check period. He acquired assets disproportionate to his known source of income. He did not account for disproportionate assets in his possession.

5. The total income of the accused during check period is Rs.12,77,203/-.The expenditure during the check period is Rs.6,30,798/-. The savings is Rs.6,46,405/-. The worth of assets possessed by the accused is Rs.15,76,858/-. Hence, the accused is in possession of assets worth of Rs.9,30,454/-. excess to his known sources of income, which he could not reasonably explain. The Government issued proceedings vide G.O.Ms.No.3 dated 16.01.1998 to prosecute the accused. The Investigation Officer after concluded the investigation, laid charge sheet before the Special Court for the offence U/s.13(1)(e) r/w.13(2) of the P.C.Act, 1988.

6. 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 accused denied the charge and claims to be tried.

EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION:

7. The prosecution to substantiate the charge, examined P.Ws-1 to 62 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-206.

8. 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 same. No oral evidence was adduced for the accused. Exs.D-1 and D-2 were marked. Exs.X-1 and X-2 were also marked during the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses.

FINDING OF THE SPECIAL COURT:

9. The Special Court considering the above evidence, found that the total income of the accused as follows:

Even if 10% deduction is given, the disproportionate assets would be as follows:

Therefore, the Special Court found the accused guilty of the offence U/s.13(1)9e) r/w.13(2) of the P.C.Act, 1988. Accordingly, convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned above. Hence, the appeal came to be preferred by the accused.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

10. The learned counsel for the appellant confined his argument to the following points:

1. The first contention is that there is an arithmetical error while calculating the income. The income was calculated as Rs.12,55,203-06 paise, instead of Rs.13,55,203-06 paise.

2. The second contention of the accused is that accused and his wife own Ac.14-71 cents of agricultural land. The contention of the accused is that he derived a sum of Rs.24,09,263/- as income from the agriculture land during the check period. But prosecution valued it as Rs.2,98,845/- only. The prosecution admits that accused owned Ac.7-31 cents of double crop wet land in West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh Stat