The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that a public servant possesses assets disproportionate to their known income.

1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order, dated 16.01.2010, passed, in Special Case No. 42 of 2004, by the learned Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation (in short, CBI), Assam, Guwahati, convicting the accused - appellant under S.13(2) read with S.13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, 'the PC Act'), and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years with fine of Rs.5,00,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 1 ½ years.

2. The case of the prosecution may, in brief, be described as under:
(i) Superintendent of Police, CBI (Anti - Corruption), Guwahati, lodged an Ejahar, on 18.02.97, alleging, inter alia, that while appellant had been working as Manager, Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd (hereinafter referred to as, 'the HFCL'), from the year 1969 to 1994, he had amassed assets disproportionate to his known source of income and, in this regard, it was alleged that though income of the appellant, from all known sources, during his service career, was Rs.12,67,035/-, he was found to have amassed assets to the tune of Rs.7,40,641/- upon excluding expenses, which he might have had incurred. Treating the said Ejahar as First Information Report (in short, FIR), RC No.4(A) / 97 SHG came to be registered under S.13(2) read with S.13(I)(e) of the PC Act. The Investigating Officer, on completion of investigation, laid charge sheet under the said penal provisions.
(ii) During the course of investigation, appellant's house was searched and many documents, such as, passbook, cheque book, fixed deposits and insurance policies were seized. In terms of the charge sheet, the period, which had fallen for scrutiny of the appellant's assets, started from 01.01.1981 to 18.03.1997 and though the said period started with a small sum of Rs.14,621/-, it ended, in terms of the statement furnished to the charge sheet, with a sum of Rs.33,78,054.24/-, which included the value of one RCC three storied building valued at Rs.16,91,813/-. According to statement C, the detail income and other receipts, during the check period, was Rs.23,96,553.16/-. According to the statement D, attached to the charge sheet, the expenditure, during the check period, was Rs.9,95,526,31/-. The investigating officer concluded that value of the total assets, found to be disproportionate to the known sources of income of the appellant, was Rs.19,63,106.39/-.

3. At the trial, when a charge, under S.13(2) read with S.13(I) (e) of the PC Act, was framed, the appellant pleaded not guilty thereto.

4. In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether 50 witnesses. The accused was, then, examined under S.313 Cr.PC and, in his examination aforementioned, the accused denied that he had committed the offence, which was alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being that the accused never possessed any asset disproportionate to his known sources of income. In support of its case, defence, too, examined six witnesses including the appellant.

5. Having, however, found the accused - appellant guilty of the offence, which he stood charged with, the learned trial Court convicted him accordingly and passed sentence against him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence passed against him, the accused, as a convicted person, has preferred this appeal.

6. I have heard Mr. A. C. Borbora, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel, for the appellant, and Mr. P.N. Choudhury,